Commuter Rail to New Hampshire?

[Commuting Boston Student]

Really weird that they're worried about "competing" with I-93. Is it a toll road in Southern NH? If you take vehicle miles off I-93, the new widened road will last LONGER.

Define "Southern."

I-93 is signed as A Toll Road between Exits 10 and 12, with Exit 11 and through traffic being tolled. There might be tolls north of Plymouth, but I've never been up there.

Other than that, Interstate 93 is not tolled at all in New Hampshire. Interstate 95 is tolled at Hampton and you can't get any more Southern (Southeastern) NH before ending up in another state.

There's the Everett Turnpike and the Spaulding Turnpike, those are tolled roads in Southern NH...

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Why is anyone surprised by this?

NH for many decades has been the fundamentalist religious parent who refuses to allow its child to have an emergency appendectomy.

They want to remain in 1825 and just mooch money off of Massachusetts.

Why even bother?

Why even bother? Because despite the Executive Council vote, people there want this. By an overwhelming majority. And because I don't want to see my home state and the city where I grew up left behind in large part because of newcomer tax dodgers moving in and shifting policies to protect their wealthy suburbs. True, New Hampshire has been embarrassingly cheap, but this is an instance of suburban (and in the case of much of the legislative leadership, newcomer) politicians thwarting the good of the cities.

 

[whighlander]

Why even bother? Because despite the Executive Council vote, people there want this. By an overwhelming majority. And because I don't want to see my home state and the city where I grew up left behind in large part because of newcomer tax dodgers moving in and shifting policies to protect their wealthy suburbs. True, New Hampshire has been embarrassingly cheap, but this is an instance of suburban (and in the case of much of the legislative leadership, newcomer) politicians thwarting the good of the cities.

FrankLM -- Facts are stubborn things

Where do most of the 1.3M inhabitants of the Live Free or Die state habitate:

a) Rural < 1.0 per sq mi
b) Suburban <500. per sq. mi
c) urban > 500 per sq. mi with minimum of 20,000 people in entity

The answer is b) by a long shot

Which of the above benefit the most from fixed rail infrastructure -- the answer is c)

Where do most of the members of the Legislature hail from -- the answer is a) and b)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

FrankLM -- Facts are stubborn things

Where do most of the 1.3M inhabitants of the Live Free or Die state habitate:

a) Rural < 1.0 per sq mi
b) Suburban <500. per sq. mi
c) urban > 500 per sq. mi with minimum of 20,000 people in entity

The answer is b) by a long shot

Which of the above benefit the most from fixed rail infrastructure -- the answer is c)

Where do most of the members of the Legislature hail from -- the answer is a) and b)

Which has what to do with rejecting a paid-for study on grounds of "consistency"?

Lemme guess...this guy fancies himself a pro-business kind of lawmaker. Do you think he perhaps fears what the study demographics are going to tell him about Southern NH's diminishing returns in attracting business and reverse commuters? That they don't have much chance to expand their tax base by building office parks at every 93 exit all the way to prosperity when the rapidly improving transit and reverse commute options in places like Fitchburg start poaching companies looking for cheaper office space. How much bigger are their tax breaks going to have to be to attract anyone north until they can't afford to tax break any more? What will all the one-trick-pony "pro business" pols do then?


This is a fear reaction. They don't want to know how screwed they are. They're doubling down so they have an excuse not to try to know. I bet they also don't want to read every town's downtown revitalization studies either sounding the mayday about lack of parking and pedestrian access hollowing out their sustainability, and outpacing the cost of sustaining all that big-box sprawl. Fear challenges, fear change...fear studies.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

FrankLM -- Facts are stubborn things

Where do most of the 1.3M inhabitants of the Live Free or Die state habitate:

a) Rural < 1.0 per sq mi
b) Suburban <500. per sq. mi
c) urban > 500 per sq. mi with minimum of 20,000 people in entity

The answer is b) by a long shot

Which of the above benefit the most from fixed rail infrastructure -- the answer is c)

Where do most of the members of the Legislature hail from -- the answer is a) and b)

Facts are stubborn things. Which is why I am using them. According to the Census Bureau, New Hampshire has an urban population of 819,087. This includes all people living in what the Bureau calls

urbanized areas and urban clusters—identical in the criteria used to delineate them but different in size. The Census Bureau defines an urbanized area wherever it finds an urban nucleus of 50,000 or more people.

Presumably about half of the urbanized population lives in the Manchester-Nashua metro area, which is home to 400,721 people. That area, again, is split about in half with 109,565 living in Manchester (187,596 in the urban area extending into the surrounding towns) and 86,494 living in Nashua, with the remaining half of the people living in dense suburbs around and between those two cities. So this commuter rail line--with stops in Manchester, Nashua, Merrimack, Bedford, as well as Hooksett and Concord to the north, would effectively serve more than half of the state's urban population, which is about a third of the population in general.

So instead of making up some criteria for urban, suburban and rural areas, the actual facts show that the Capitol Corridor would serve a densely populated urban area that is the economic and population center of New Hampshire. By the way, even by your criteria, towns like Salem, Derry, Londonderry, Hudson, Merrimack and Bedford--all of which have densities of well over 500 people per sq. mile and populations above 20,000--would be considered urban areas. Those are facts.

Of course, having commuter rail will also make the area more urban and less sprawling.

The reason more representatives are from the suburbs--which again are generally densely populated, urbanized areas--is in part because they do have a larger share of the population, because they are more Republican-leaning and the last election was the best year in history for that part in the state, and in part because of gerrymandering such as what is going on now, to shift even more seats from the cities to the suburbs than their population indicates.

And once more, the town councils of Republican-dominated, densely populated suburbs like Merrimack and Bedford support the commuter rail, because they understand that the benefits--allowing denser development as land is becoming increasingly scarce, attracting new businesses, and offering residents commuting options for work as well as leisure--that apply to Manchester, Nashua and the airport also extend to their towns. The executive councilors are not from these suburbs--they are from insular pockets of affluence away from urban areas like Newfields and Mont Vernon. That's fine, and those people deserve representation as much as anyone else, but they were elected to represent vast areas with diverse (socioeconomically if not racially) populations. Instead, as the Nashua Telegraph wrote in the editorial above, they voted against the interests of their districts and the wishes of their constituents.

New Hampshire is not a rural state if you look at its population. And even according to the criteria you set out, the area to be served by the Capitol Corridor is profoundly urban. Not as urban as Boston, of course, but more urban than the area around Portland, and just about as urban areas already connected to Boston via commuter rail, such as Worcester, Lowell and Providence. If Manchester and New Hampshire do not want to see those places prosper at their expense--and the UNH poll shows that they don't--then it needs to get commuter rail.

In the end, you keep making arguments against this, then saying that you like trains when they make sense. But your arguments completely fall apart, because this study would have answered that. That's what I don't understand about the Executive Council vote or your persistence here--whether you support commuter rail (as 75% in NH do) or you don't (5% in NH), I don't understand how you could oppose a study to look at the costs and benefits, just as is done before highway expansion or any other major project.

I'm glad, though, that you've shown that that mindset is not unique to New Hampshire.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Which has what to do with rejecting a paid-for study on grounds of "consistency"?

Lemme guess...this guy fancies himself a pro-business kind of lawmaker. Do you think he perhaps fears what the study demographics are going to tell him about Southern NH's diminishing returns in attracting business and reverse commuters? That they don't have much chance to expand their tax base by building office parks at every 93 exit all the way to prosperity when the rapidly improving transit and reverse commute options in places like Fitchburg start poaching companies looking for cheaper office space. How much bigger are their tax breaks going to have to be to attract anyone north until they can't afford to tax break any more? What will all the one-trick-pony "pro business" pols do then?


This is a fear reaction. They don't want to know how screwed they are. They're doubling down so they have an excuse not to try to know. I bet they also don't want to read every town's downtown revitalization studies either sounding the mayday about lack of parking and pedestrian access hollowing out their sustainability, and outpacing the cost of sustaining all that big-box sprawl. Fear challenges, fear change...fear studies.

I totally agree, and especially like the "one-trick-pony" part. I've been saying this for awhile, but New Hampshire cannot have a sustainable economy built on gimmicks--fireworks store lining the borders, liquor stores on the highway, souther suburbs full of tax-dodging commuters who still spend most of their money across the state line. There's a difference between cheapness and frugality that I think New Hampshire once understood, but has been losing a grip on for awhile, and has become totally senile in the last year. Maybe it doesn't need an income tax--I think it probably makes more economic sense to still have no sales tax--but it needs to look at its revenues (paltry) and the backlog of projects and programs it has been underfunding (extensive) if it is going to remain--or perhaps become once again--an attractive place to visit, work and live. Commuter rail is one thing that would help that; sprawl, underfunded programs and canceled projects, and highway-side liquor stores are not.

 

[GW2500]

I also think there is another factor that's not being mentioned. In the eyes of the white, sheltered, clueless, suburban American idiots, which NH is chock full of, trains are associated with public transportation, which is associated with inner city demographics. And behind closed doors one of the whitest (if not whitest) states in the country desperately wants to stay that way. I absolutely think they are scared Lawrence residents will take the train up to NH and cause crime.

 

[BostonObserver]

Maine is the whitest state and has train service. It's always great to blame everything on racism.

 

[GW2500]

^^ Its not the only reason for sure, but it factors in.

 

[cozzyd]

Speaking as someone who flies a lot, I might be tempted to use MHT if I knew there was a quick and easy way to get there by train.

Although, then again, I've never considered PVD because the train service to it is so sporadic (and non-existent on weekends).

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Maine is the whitest state and has train service. It's always great to blame everything on racism.

But it is a factor in some of the opposition to Transit projects....not just NH , happens in Jersey all the time. The good thing is these people are in the minority , the bad thing is there the most vocal.

 

[whighlander]

Frank -- the problem with the definitons used by the Census is that they are meaningless in a place such as NH which places a major emphasis on local governance.

In you definition of 400,000 people in the Manchester/ Nashua you have about 200,000 living in the two cities and the equal number of people living in small & midisize suburban towns and some few near rural-hamlets. None of whom individually has a population of more than a few thousand. Now these small places are not going to be interested in something which by and large has minimal benefit for only a handfull of their citizens

It just makes the case a tough one to prove on the merits.

Additonally, as I pointed out earlier -- rail is good if you are collecting people from a number of locations and delivering them to a central point. But the reality of modern city-metro areas is that half or even more of the jobs are outside the central cores. These places just are not conducive to rail. For example -- a day or so ago TJM (parent of TJ Max and Marshalls) announced the purchase of the old Fidelity Campus in Marlboro MA -- located just off I-495. While a couple of thousand people may eventually work there -- not more than a few will come from any town in southern NH.

Indeed I would be willing to bet that the majority of the people commuting down I-93 or Rt-3 from NH into MA have desitinations other than downtown Boston / Cambridge.

Finally the myth of the reverse commmute is just that -- the number of people commuting outward is a small fraction of the number of people commuting inward -- just look at the highway traffic some morning on one of the TV Stations.

For reference purposes -- here is the list of the bigger concentrations of people in NH -- as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs). The following is a list of NECTAs in New Hampshire:

Berlin
Claremont
Concord
Franklin
Keene
Laconia
Lebanon – Hartford, VT
Manchester
Nashua Metropolitan Division (part of Boston metropolitan area)
Portsmouth
Rochester – Dover

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It just makes the case a tough one to prove on the merits.

Well, yes. When you have a $3.5 mil grant paying for the study and you turn it down for ideological reasons, it's going to be damn hard to prove anything because there is no fact collection going on. EVERYTHING is conjecture without that. The unwillingness to take what they've been given is problem #1 here. New Hampshire pols are afraid they're going to get bad news on the demographic trends the study turns up (with credible theories as to what that bad news would be). Nevermind what the recommendations are...they simply don't want to hear that their gimmicks won't grow the tax base any longer or pay for the one-size-fits-all asphalt solution. It cuts too many ways, brings up too many other bad implications far-flung from transportation. They must not think bad thoughts.


The fear reaction to potential bad news demanding change nobody wants to make doesn't just afflict climate change deniers. This is the same phenomenon at work.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Frank -- the problem with the definitons used by the Census is that they are meaningless in a place such as NH which places a major emphasis on local governance.

In you definition of 400,000 people in the Manchester/ Nashua you have about 200,000 living in the two cities and the equal number of people living in small & midisize suburban towns and some few near rural-hamlets. None of whom individually has a population of more than a few thousand. Now these small places are not going to be interested in something which by and large has minimal benefit for only a handfull of their citizens

It just makes the case a tough one to prove on the merits.

Additonally, as I pointed out earlier -- rail is good if you are collecting people from a number of locations and delivering them to a central point. But the reality of modern city-metro areas is that half or even more of the jobs are outside the central cores. These places just are not conducive to rail. For example -- a day or so ago TJM (parent of TJ Max and Marshalls) announced the purchase of the old Fidelity Campus in Marlboro MA -- located just off I-495. While a couple of thousand people may eventually work there -- not more than a few will come from any town in southern NH.

Indeed I would be willing to bet that the majority of the people commuting down I-93 or Rt-3 from NH into MA have desitinations other than downtown Boston / Cambridge.

Finally the myth of the reverse commmute is just that -- the number of people commuting outward is a small fraction of the number of people commuting inward -- just look at the highway traffic some morning on one of the TV Stations.

For reference purposes -- here is the list of the bigger concentrations of people in NH -- as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs). The following is a list of NECTAs in New Hampshire:

Berlin
Claremont
Concord
Franklin
Keene
Laconia
Lebanon – Hartford, VT
Manchester
Nashua Metropolitan Division (part of Boston metropolitan area)
Portsmouth
Rochester – Dover

Where do you get the idea that the towns around Manchester and Nashua are all just a few thousand people? It's entirely--and as I'm beginning to expect, unsurprisingly--inaccurate. The first four cities in towns along the Capitol Corridor in New Hampshire are Nashua, Merrimack, Bedford and Manchester. Bedford is the smallest such community at a little over 21,000. Even without the leadership of Manchester's mayor (which I consider shameful), the town and city councils of all those communities favor rail, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that "these small places are not going to be interested".

And despite what some people like to think, New Hampshire is not a "home rule" locally-based state, but a Dillon rule state. The state, not the towns, has the authority to determine transportation infrastructure and planning. I'm not really sure what your point about the emphasis on towns is, but it's beside the point anyway, since (again) the overwhelming majority of residents from every area (and political party) in the state supports the Capitol Corridor, as do the local governments of all the towns along its proposed route.

While I would also bet that most people traveling I-93 and Route 3 are headed to places other than Boston, your anecdotal arguments don't cut it. Despite what the Executive Council seems to suggest, a properly functioning state relies on facts, not anecdotes and preconceived notions for its policy making and planning. And as the Boston Express buses on I-93 and Route 3 show, there are plenty of people commuting from the area directly to Boston. If they're willing to sit in traffic on a bus for $18, I bet many more people would be willing to get to their destination faster and in more comfort for something closer to the $7.25 that it takes to get from Providence to Boston on commuter rail.

Commuter rail, despite its name, is not just for commuters. I don't think many people commute from Providence, but people from Providence or Boston can take a train to visit the other city, whether for work or leisure. It makes Providence a more desirable place to live due to its modern, convenient connection to Boston, and it makes it easier for businesses to attract workers. The same would be true of Manchester and Nashua.

Your argument also ignores the new development that rail would bring. Train stations in downtown Manchester, Nashua and Concord would almost certainly be surrounded by transit-oriented development. Even Bedford has expressed a desire to explore TOD around the airport station. Rail would serve the new residents and businesses around these stations, as well as current residents who could hop on the train from Manchester to get dinner in Nashua, or from Nashua to a show or baseball game in Manchester without worrying about parking and traffic.

Unlike highways, rail is not just about transportation infrastructure, but also the livability of cities and denser suburbs. New Hampshire is losing young people, who are looking for more dynamic cities, and Manchester loses young people even in-state to Portsmouth. Having a quick, easy connection to Boston and the development it will help spur in downtown Manchester will make the city more attractive to young people and families looking for a smaller, but still urban alternative to Boston and Providence.

It's clear, though, that you either have an ideological opposition to commuter rail, or that in the absence of facts you have become entrenched in your opposition. You keep changing the criteria--first the area has to be urban, but when it proves to be by both your and the Census Bureau's definitions, now it has to contend with New Hampshire's mythical (but incorrect) local control. You clearly don't have a very strong knowledge of either the development or political will of the people and municipalities in the Merrimack Valley. It is a generally concentrated, and in Manchester and Nashua rather densely built area, in which 75% of the people want a commuter rail connection to Boston. That's not an anecdote--those are facts from the UNH poll and the Census Bureau, which by the way does make some adjustments to its urban criteria based on the specifics of the region.

But again, the real issue here isn't even the commuter rail, itself, but the study that would have provided the facts about economic benefits and costs. You have yet to offer any reason to oppose that study. But I suspect it probably stems from the same reason that Colin Van Ostern, who is running against Executive Councilor Dan St. Hilaire this fall, surmises in yesterday's Concord Monitor for the opposition of Councilors Wheeler, St. Hilaire and Sununu:

There's no question that a modern passenger and freight rail line from Boston to Concord would be a great benefit for individuals and businesses up and down the greater Merrimack Valley, and beyond. This is especially true today, with gas prices breaking $4 per gallon and an economy in sore need of the jobs that are generated when New Hampshire businesses have access to new, cheaper ways to get their goods to market.

The only real question is how much it would cost taxpayers, and whether the economic development benefits justify those costs. It's a fair question, and that's why the federal government offered to supply the funds to study exactly that - and why local businesses raised more than $100,000 in private donations to prepare the grant application for those funds. When the Executive Council refused the federal aid for a rail study, it was the policy equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly singing "la-la-la-la" so that they wouldn't have to hear an answer that might threaten their preconceived beliefs.

 

[whighlander]

Where do you get the idea that the towns around Manchester and Nashua are all just a few thousand people? It's entirely--and as I'm beginning to expect, unsurprisingly--inaccurate. The first four cities in towns along the Capitol Corridor in New Hampshire are Nashua, Merrimack, Bedford and Manchester. Bedford is the smallest such community at a little over 21,000. Even without the leadership of Manchester's mayor (which I consider shameful), the town and city councils of all those communities favor rail, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that "these small places are not going to be interested".

And despite what some people like to think, New Hampshire is not a "home rule" locally-based state, but a Dillon rule state. The state, not the towns, has the authority to determine transportation infrastructure and planning. I'm not really sure what your point about the emphasis on towns is, but it's beside the point anyway, since (again) the overwhelming majority of residents from every area (and political party) in the state supports the Capitol Corridor, as do the local governments of all the towns along its proposed route.

While I would also bet that most people traveling I-93 and Route 3 are headed to places other than Boston, your anecdotal arguments don't cut it. Despite what the Executive Council seems to suggest, a properly functioning state relies on facts, not anecdotes and preconceived notions for its policy making and planning. And as the Boston Express buses on I-93 and Route 3 show, there are plenty of people commuting from the area directly to Boston. If they're willing to sit in traffic on a bus for $18, I bet many more people would be willing to get to their destination faster and in more comfort for something closer to the $7.25 that it takes to get from Providence to Boston on commuter rail.

Commuter rail, despite its name, is not just for commuters. I don't think many people commute from Providence, but people from Providence or Boston can take a train to visit the other city, whether for work or leisure. It makes Providence a more desirable place to live due to its modern, convenient connection to Boston, and it makes it easier for businesses to attract workers. The same would be true of Manchester and Nashua.

Your argument also ignores the new development that rail would bring. Train stations in downtown Manchester, Nashua and Concord would almost certainly be surrounded by transit-oriented development. Even Bedford has expressed a desire to explore TOD around the airport station. Rail would serve the new residents and businesses around these stations, as well as current residents who could hop on the train from Manchester to get dinner in Nashua, or from Nashua to a show or baseball game in Manchester without worrying about parking and traffic.

Unlike highways, rail is not just about transportation infrastructure, but also the livability of cities and denser suburbs. New Hampshire is losing young people, who are looking for more dynamic cities, and Manchester loses young people even in-state to Portsmouth. Having a quick, easy connection to Boston and the development it will help spur in downtown Manchester will make the city more attractive to young people and families looking for a smaller, but still urban alternative to Boston and Providence.

It's clear, though, that you either have an ideological opposition to commuter rail, or that in the absence of facts you have become entrenched in your opposition. You keep changing the criteria--first the area has to be urban, but when it proves to be by both your and the Census Bureau's definitions, now it has to contend with New Hampshire's mythical (but incorrect) local control. You clearly don't have a very strong knowledge of either the development or political will of the people and municipalities in the Merrimack Valley. It is a generally concentrated, and in Manchester and Nashua rather densely built area, in which 75% of the people want a commuter rail connection to Boston. That's not an anecdote--those are facts from the UNH poll and the Census Bureau, which by the way does make some adjustments to its urban criteria based on the specifics of the region.

But again, the real issue here isn't even the commuter rail, itself, but the study that would have provided the facts about economic benefits and costs. You have yet to offer any reason to oppose that study. But I suspect it probably stems from the same reason that Colin Van Ostern, who is running against Executive Councilor Dan St. Hilaire this fall, surmises in yesterday's Concord Monitor for the opposition of Councilors Wheeler, St. Hilaire and Sununu:

Frank -- your arguments are just as much ad hoc, as you accuse my arguments to be based on anecdotes and invalid facts.

The reality is that there is only one expression of support that matters -- you can have all the poll questions that you want -- but will the people of NH pay for the cost of the infrastructure and pay then the difference between what the commuter is charged versus the cost.

At this point -- neither of us knows the answer to that question. Maine for example has stepped up to the plate to pay part of the cost associated with running the Downeaster.

You refer to the fact, that it is a state decision -- acknowledged. The reason why I brought up the towns is that NH vis MA the local community has a great deal more responsibility and access to Tax Revenue (through the real estate tax) relative to total public expenditure in the state. The money to operate this rail system would ultimately come from the real estate tax in the cities and towns.

I don't deny your contention that there are urban densities and numbers of people in Manchester and Nashua which are comparable to Lowell -- although since the distances are somewhat greater to Boston from Manchester and Nashua than Lowell there are probably a smaller percentage of people who would commute to Boston.

I have no ideological opposition to commuter rail -- but neither do I have an un-natural infatuation to the idea of rail. Rail provided the means for growing cities to be able to function in the 19th Century. There are a number of places with adequate density where the existing rail infrastructure and some expansion is perfectly appropriate and useful. However, much of the development in the past 50 years has not occurred in places where rail exists or is even potentially viable. Thus the inherent advantage of the automobile in general and specifically why the vast majority of people commute via automobile -- a behavior which overall is not likely to change dramatically.

Despite your arguments -- my main contentions are still valid:

1) a lot of the people coming from NH to Massachusetts are not destined for Boston -- they are often commuting to companies located along the major highways I-495, I-93, Rt-3, I-95/Rt-128 -- its exceedingly difficult to see how Commuter Rail helps their commute
2) While there may continue to be funds principally derived from gasoline tax available for expansion and possibly rebuilding of infrastructure, due to 16T$ hole in the Treasury -- the era of federal taxpayer operating subsidies is over -- for a long long time
3) If there are viable alternatives such as automobiles most people will not voluntarily tie themselves to commuter rail-frequency schedules outside of commuting time frames. You suggest someone would pop on the train to go to dinner in Nashua -- This is not likely unless there was a high frequency local service from Manchester to Nashua -- Most realistically the train would run from Manchester to Boston via Nashua - - the likely frequency would be 1 per hour -- the waiter is late with the check and you have to call a taxi or spend the night in Nashua.

Finally, the reason I oppose the "free study" -- is a matter of principle -- it is not the responsibility of the tax payers of the US to pay for such a study -- of no benefit to any except the citizens of NH,. Let NH, or NH and MA together pay for the study if they think it will provide useful guidance to the transportation policy.

By the way - despite not having commuter rail - both Manchester and Nashua have ranked near to the top in national rankings of cities for quality of life

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Finally, the reason I oppose the "free study" -- is a matter of principle -- it is not the responsibility of the tax payers of the US to pay for such a study -- of no benefit to any except the citizens of NH,. Let NH, or NH and MA together pay for the study if they think it will provide useful guidance to the transportation policy.

This is how studies are done for infrastructure projects all over the country. As I mentioned earlier, only a few states receive less federal spending per dollar they send to the federal government than New Hampshire. This study, like every other federally funded study, is an instance of the state deriving benefit from some of the money it sends to Washington. It's no different than when the MBTA receives a federal grant to study extending the Green Line, or when MassDoT or NHDOT receive federal money to study--or to actually widen highways. In a federal system, it makes every bit of sense to pool resources and fund projects of merit. States and municipalities can fund additional projects on their own, but there's no way that individual states could accomplish all the projects that have been at least partially federally funded. I really don't see how it's any different than a state pooling the resources of its towns and cities for projects that will not benefit all of them equally, or of cities and towns to pool the resources of their individual residents to do the same.

1) a lot of the people coming from NH to Massachusetts are not destined for Boston -- they are often commuting to companies located along the major highways I-495, I-93, Rt-3, I-95/Rt-128 -- its exceedingly difficult to see how Commuter Rail helps their commute
2) While there may continue to be funds principally derived from gasoline tax available for expansion and possibly rebuilding of infrastructure, due to 16T$ hole in the Treasury -- the era of federal taxpayer operating subsidies is over -- for a long long time
3) If there are viable alternatives such as automobiles most people will not voluntarily tie themselves to commuter rail-frequency schedules outside of commuting time frames. You suggest someone would pop on the train to go to dinner in Nashua -- This is not likely unless there was a high frequency local service from Manchester to Nashua -- Most realistically the train would run from Manchester to Boston via Nashua - - the likely frequency would be 1 per hour -- the waiter is late with the check and you have to call a taxi or spend the night in Nashua.

I agree with some aspects of your contentions, though I strongly differ that even those I agree with are strong arguments against commuter rail. Until there is a study that actually addresses those contentions, that measures the costs and benefits of commuter, that can accurately project ridership and demand, and that evaluates alternatives, your arguments against and mine for the Capitol Corridor are just guesses.

We can be idealistic without being ideological, but when ideology (or unwavering principle) trumps pragmatism we're not going to be able to function as a society.

 

[whighlander]

This is how studies are done for infrastructure projects all over the country. As I mentioned earlier, only a few states receive less federal spending per dollar they send to the federal government than New Hampshire. This study, like every other federally funded study, is an instance of the state deriving benefit from some of the money it sends to Washington. It's no different than when the MBTA receives a federal grant to study extending the Green Line, or when MassDoT or NHDOT receive federal money to study--or to actually widen highways. In a federal system, it makes every bit of sense to pool resources and fund projects of merit. States and municipalities can fund additional projects on their own, but there's no way that individual states could accomplish all the projects that have been at least partially federally funded. I really don't see how it's any different than a state pooling the resources of its towns and cities for projects that will not benefit all of them equally, or of cities and towns to pool the resources of their individual residents to do the same.



I agree with some aspects of your contentions, though I strongly differ that even those I agree with are strong arguments against commuter rail. Until there is a study that actually addresses those contentions, that measures the costs and benefits of commuter, that can accurately project ridership and demand, and that evaluates alternatives, your arguments against and mine for the Capitol Corridor are just guesses.

We can be idealistic without being ideological, but when ideology (or unwavering principle) trumps pragmatism we're not going to be able to function as a society.

Frank -- that model is broken -- we are Mega Greece -- but there is no Mega Germany to bail us out -- In fact there is no Federal Money anymore

For the foreseeable future the states and local communities will have to take care of the their own interests -- the question we have to ask is:
For -- which federally assumed function are we willing to borrow 40% from China and obligate our children and grandchildren to pay for it
The answer should be very few

However -- this does not preclude:
1) local communities working together such as the great library resource sharing of the Minuteman Library Network
2) New England and Northeast Cities and States developing quite effective programs such as:
a) the T Service to Providence and soon the Providence Airport
b) the Downeaster
c) potential high speed rail in the Northeast e.g. from Albany through Springfield and Worcester to Boston

Just don't expect the people in Ohio or Montana to pay for them

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Frank -- that model is broken -- we are Mega Greece -- but there is no Mega Germany to bail us out -- In fact there is no Federal Money anymore

For the foreseeable future the states and local communities will have to take care of the their own interests -- the question we have to ask is:
For -- which federally assumed function are we willing to borrow 40% from China and obligate our children and grandchildren to pay for it
The answer should be very few

However -- this does not preclude:
1) local communities working together such as the great library resource sharing of the Minuteman Library Network
2) New England and Northeast Cities and States developing quite effective programs such as:
a) the T Service to Providence and soon the Providence Airport
b) the Downeaster
c) potential high speed rail in the Northeast e.g. from Albany through Springfield and Worcester to Boston

Just don't expect the people in Ohio or Montana to pay for them

But where do you think the majority of the money for the extension of T service to Providence, or the Downeaster comes from? It is federal funds that pay a bulk of commuter rail and Amtrak services, not to mention highway construction. We have things like the federal fuel taxes so that each state is not working on its own, but so that we can coordinate and prioritize projects. I know that an eventual commuter rail line in New Hampshire will require the state to finally step up and fund it in coordination with the federal government, just as Rhode Island and Maine have done, but it is inaccurate and unrealistic to expect all federal money raised in Ohio or New Hampshire to stay in the state.

While I agree that the current fiscal situation at the federal level is unsustainable, I really don't think the way to fix that is to cut spending on our infrastructure, which is already in dire shape across the board. We need to cut wasteful spending (requiring every state to work entirely on its own would likely cause more waste, spending and duplication of effort), and raise taxes in order to get out of the current fiscal bind. Cutting spending on projects that should result in economic benefits doesn't seem like a good way to reach a more sustainable fiscal situation or to improve the economy, let alone to maintain a national infrastructure.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120311/NEWS0604/703119993

See middle of page. Mayor of Nashua trying to get the grant reassigned to a different party to have it completed as scheduled. Seeing if it can go to 1) the private contractor tasked with conducting the survey, 2) city of Nashua, or 3) MBTA...whichever one is bendable within the rules. The T is the closest fit in definition to a state or authority, so may become Mass.'s study for Lowell-Nashua. With added bonus that they'd be able to pack it full of recs to improve the existing Lowell Line, which is saddled with the lowest speed limit and most unreliable signals on the northside. Something an NH-run study wouldn't take into account, but would obviously be a necessary prereq. before building anything out. Thanks, NH nihilists...we'll take that stimulus!


See also near bottom of the page where the state House is telling NHDOT to raid the Turnpike tolls, bridge repair fund, and other road projects to come up with the matching funds for the 93 widening. In case anyone has delusions that "consistency" in anything but political special interests is informing their spending decisions.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Thanks for finding that. I have no idea what the Metropolitan Boston Transit Authority is, but I'll assume they mean the Mass Bay TA. Here's the section of the column that F-Line was referring to:

Not over yet: The Executive Council has derailed a $3.65 million study of a passenger rail system from Concord to Boston, but that does not mean a stake has been driven through its heart.

The council voted, 3-2, last week to deny the contract for the study, but efforts are afoot to see whether the Federal Railroad Administration would contract directly with the URS Corp. of Salem and San Francisco for the study in the same way the federal Health and Human Services Agency contracted with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England to provide family planning services after the council turned it down last year.

Another option would be to have Nashua accept the grant, though that would be a little more difficult because the FRA could only send grants to state agencies or the state.

Nashua Mayor Donnalee Lozeau said after the council meeting she would explore that possibility.

And the third possibility would be to have the Metropolitan Boston Transit Authority (MBTA) accept the money for the grant and then contract for the study.

And just to add to the argument against the idea that NH should not accept the funds on principle: if the T gets the grant, that just proves that the money isn't saved; it's simply diverted to states willing to accept it. So NH can continue to be a cash cow and get nothing in return, or elect modern thinking officials this fall.