Commuter Rail to New Hampshire?

[Lurker]

 

[Matthew]

I completely agree, and Manchester, like Providence, is right at the edge of that one-hour ride.

I believe the idea (which will be fleshed out if someone is able to accept the study in place of the state), would be to run trains express from the New Hampshire stations to North Station, with Massachusetts stops in Lowell and Woburn only. I could be wrong, but I think it would essentially be a semi-separate service, running along the same line as the Lowell line. I read somewhere that the idea would be to get from Concord to Boston in a little over an hour, maybe 90 minutes--I can't recall. So that would put Manchester (and certainly Nashua) in the just about an hour range, and I think those two cities are big enough to justify service even if it's slightly more than an hour. Of course, that would all depend on New Hampshire getting its act together (like it had from 2006-2010 at least) and funding the service.

I have no idea of the ridership figures, but Worcester looks to be about two hours from Boston. It seems like a big enough city to justify the lengthy connection, but I'm curious to know what you think. Fitchburg, which is much smaller, is about 90 minutes out. I'm curious to know what you think about service to places like that? I honestly have no idea how valuable the service is to people in those communities, but I imagine losing it would be a big deal.

In the end, I think a commuter rail extension to New Hampshire--at least the Capitol Corridor--might function as more of a separate entity than the Providence line, but I really don't know. Either way, I think it's valuable and necessary for the Manchester-Nashua area, and the state needs to do what it takes to get it in place and functioning properly, starting with the upcoming election.

Eyeing it on the map, Manchester seems to be about as far as New Bedford. One major difference is the presence of I-93, a straight shot to Boston, and a direct, subsidized, competitor to the [potential] commuter rail. Boston Express Bus seems to do it in about 1h30m at rush hour, starting from a park-n-ride south of town.

Worcester is approximately 40 miles from Boston. It seems to take an all-stops local train about 1h35m to 1h45m (~23mph) to make the journey, 16 stops altogether. This reminds me of the Caltrain corridor somewhat. It is 47 miles from San Jose Diridon to San Francisco 4th and King, and about 21 weekday stops. The all-stops local takes 1h30m (~33mph), using pretty much the same locomotive and operational style as the MBTA. So, now that I look at it, something is really slow about the Worcester line. Probably can blame CSX or something, I'm sure someone here knows.

Worcester is one of those exceptions I mentioned. It is worth it. But, at 40 miles distant, it really shouldn't be taking that long to get to Boston on the local train. Providence at about 45 miles distance takes about 1h15m (~36mph) to get to South Station. Fewer stops on the way from Providence, though, which reminds me that it would also help if we weren't stuck with these ancient diesel locos that take forever to stop and start moving again.

So back to Manchester. I think it's a bit far at 50 miles, and I-93 goes right there. At least with cities like Fitchburg, the highway connection isn't as direct. I don't know. Maybe Manchester justifies it. But then wouldn't also New Bedford? Maybe it does too. But given the fiasco that is SCR, I'm not enthusiastic about repeating it with NH.

Suppose NH was willing to pay for the service (fat chance). Plus, in this distant and strange future, MBTA finally got their head out of their ass and ran frequent Lowell trains. If you wanted to treat Manchester as a separate outer express service, you really need at least one or two extra tracks on the Lowell line to support it without hurting the inner service. Or really carefully placed passing tracks, I suppose. That will cost a lot, probably coming from MA.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Eyeing it on the map, Manchester seems to be about as far as New Bedford. One major difference is the presence of I-93, a straight shot to Boston, and a direct, subsidized, competitor to the [potential] commuter rail. Boston Express Bus seems to do it in about 1h30m at rush hour, starting from a park-n-ride south of town.

Worcester is approximately 40 miles from Boston. It seems to take an all-stops local train about 1h35m to 1h45m (~23mph) to make the journey, 16 stops altogether. This reminds me of the Caltrain corridor somewhat. It is 47 miles from San Jose Diridon to San Francisco 4th and King, and about 21 weekday stops. The all-stops local takes 1h30m (~33mph), using pretty much the same locomotive and operational style as the MBTA. So, now that I look at it, something is really slow about the Worcester line. Probably can blame CSX or something, I'm sure someone here knows.

Worcester is one of those exceptions I mentioned. It is worth it. But, at 40 miles distant, it really shouldn't be taking that long to get to Boston on the local train. Providence at about 45 miles distance takes about 1h15m (~36mph) to get to South Station. Fewer stops on the way from Providence, though, which reminds me that it would also help if we weren't stuck with these ancient diesel locos that take forever to stop and start moving again.

So back to Manchester. I think it's a bit far at 50 miles, and I-93 goes right there. At least with cities like Fitchburg, the highway connection isn't as direct. I don't know. Maybe Manchester justifies it. But then wouldn't also New Bedford? Maybe it does too. But given the fiasco that is SCR, I'm not enthusiastic about repeating it with NH.

Suppose NH was willing to pay for the service (fat chance). Plus, in this distant and strange future, MBTA finally got their head out of their ass and ran frequent Lowell trains. If you wanted to treat Manchester as a separate outer express service, you really need at least one or two extra tracks on the Lowell line to support it without hurting the inner service. Or really carefully placed passing tracks, I suppose. That will cost a lot, probably coming from MA.

Lowell Line doesn't need extra tracks. It needs a new signal system. Right now the speed limit is capped at 60 MPH northbound and 50 MPH southbound, the slowest permanent speed of any T commuter rail line. That makes schedule management and storage space hard when all the outbounds reach Lowell much faster than the inbounds can get back home. The single track from North Chelmsford Jct. to Nashua Yard is rated 60 MPH passenger today (note: that's the FRA track class to Nashua...I doubt the T would attempt that speed on bumpy old old jointed rail). But the 26 miles from Lowell to Boston that carries packed AM trains isn't. Something's wrong with that picture.

Lowell also doesn't have an active layover yard because the one there doesn't have the idling pads where trains can plug into an electric supply to keep their AC converters powered while shutting off the main engine. Wastes fuel and belches a ton of fumes in the adjacent neighborhood. They have to deadhead trains to Boston off-peak to keep space clear, and sometimes make "secret" 1:00am revenue trains out of the last outbound of the night when it has to deadhead back to Boston. It's the only line besides itty-bitty Stoughton that doesn't have a layover.

And there's a 25 MPH speed restriction through the only grade crossings on the line, a few hundred feet apart in West Medford. The crossing signals are all "dumb" mechanical-switch triggered and can't coordinate with the traffic lights in the square. So trains, including Downeasters and Haverhill expresses that skip West Medford station, have to crawl through there and a human crossing tender has to be on duty all day to provide manual assist and override to help the backed up car traffic. This is because there's no fiber optic cable anywhere nearby to wire up a "smart" crossing with signal priority and coordination.


This is pretty pathetic on a fully double-tracked line, almost entirely straight with high-speed graded curves, with no grade crossings whatsoever besides that dysfunctional West Medford pair, wide station spacing everywhere but the absurd Wedgemere/Winchester Ctr. pair, and serving as the northside's only 'true' intercity line. It's the slowest single portion of the Downeaster, with the Anderson-Boston southbound trip timing as long as some of the widest-spaced stops in the NH and ME sticks where it's 80 MPH running. These signals are also the most failure-prone on the entire northside they're so old, and there are a lot of flooding problems in Somerville (being fixed this year bundled with GLX work), Winchester, and Woburn because of decrepit culverts. So don't let current ride and the somewhat anemic Lowell schedules deceive. This is a high-speed intercity trunk, the freight traffic's moderate but waaay lower than Worcester, and without such a deep deferred maintenance hole it should by all logic be the fastest not-Providence line on the system fully capable of absorbing a branchline or two in addition to interstate service.


Nashua's sleight of hand may be a real blessing in disguise if the T becomes surrogate for the study, because the problems with the current line would get addressed in big 14 pt. print whereas New Hampshire couldn't care less. They stand a decent chance of getting some Amtrak funding for the Wilmington-Boston signal renewal because that's the Downeaster's #1 bottleneck after all the Haverhill Line work is finished and also one of their biggest PTC mandate compliance terror threats because the T has done zilch to plan for their implementation (station pyramids and South Coast FAIL consultants before binding federal law!). +30 MPH (1-1/2 times faster) for 12 miles on the southbound DE...bigtime improvement. The Nashua study would be an excellent way to expedite that and fish for funding to finish the job Wilmington-Lowell...all in a way that saves the Obama Admin. some face for their overexhuberence on the Capitol Corridor after NH punked them.

In many ways this is an easier job than all the little crap they have to do the Worcester Line because once ongoing Wedgemere and Winchester platform construction is done West Medford's the last non-ADA station to tackle (as opposed to Worcester's 7 non-accessible stops). It needs no double-tracking. GLX funds the cost of some of the Somerville refurbishment. The freight wheeling-and-dealing with Pan Am via Haverhill clears out some of the freight interference at Lowell station and cleans up the spaghetti mess of switches and sidings so passenger trains can go a little faster on the last mile to the station.


Watch how attractive this looks when numbers get crunched for what real 80 MPH running and layover space for a real Lowell schedule does to the existing ridership. And the Downeaster. It's 10 miles to the border after Lowell on track with the same signals, 3 miles of it already double-tracked at "passenger-comfort" standards because of all-day freight use. Border stop and layover yeard at Exit 1, Nashua previously studied is at the demolished industrial site on Spit Brook Rd. behind the IHOP, 4000 ft. across the state line. If Nashua wants to go to the mat for a downtown stop, more power to them. But wrapped up with Lowell improvements, Exit 1 has a sales pitch not at all unlike a capital-letter Wachusett extension rolled up with the Fitchburg improvements.

I'm glad people with somewhat of a clue are scheming like this on the study's behalf. It's the kind of stimulus windfall that could get the T on-base with a backlog of infrastructure renewal it's required by law to do hell or high water. This is their vehicle to advocate for it, get the national/Amtrak tie-in with the Downeaster miles, wave some compelling Lowell ridership projections in people's faces as this mythical "revenue growth" lip-service they're paying while they're whining about finances, and serve up the extension as the smaller piece of the puzzle (with blah blah blah about how a layover yard behind the IHOP and Burger King on a Route 3 offramp would be so much more humane than downtown Lowell).

It's a sales pitch. $3.5M gift is not going to look like such an ideological purity test worth warring over if it nets a 2x better quality/quantity of commute from Lowell with all the economic coattails stemming from that. Hell, even settling up the Amtrak miles to Wilmington would be a major, major difference. Punt it to MA and we'll run with it.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

So back to Manchester. I think it's a bit far at 50 miles, and I-93 goes right there. At least with cities like Fitchburg, the highway connection isn't as direct. I don't know. Maybe Manchester justifies it. But then wouldn't also New Bedford? Maybe it does too. But given the fiasco that is SCR, I'm not enthusiastic about repeating it with NH.

Suppose NH was willing to pay for the service (fat chance). Plus, in this distant and strange future, MBTA finally got their head out of their ass and ran frequent Lowell trains. If you wanted to treat Manchester as a separate outer express service, you really need at least one or two extra tracks on the Lowell line to support it without hurting the inner service. Or really carefully placed passing tracks, I suppose. That will cost a lot, probably coming from MA.

I think Manchester does justify. I-93 is a direct connection, but even with the highway upgrades going on now, it's going to take a lot longer than an hour to drive between Manchester and Boston. And I-93 completely misses Nashua and Manchester Airport. Anecdotally, I think the commuter rail expansion to Manchester is much more justified than New Bedford. Manchester-Nashua is a much larger regional metro, and--again assuming NH funds it, which is the only way it's going to happen, but I think it eventually will (the public support is there)--being an interstate project means it's not entirely on the back of Massachusetts, unlike New Bedford. As F-Line has pointed out, Massachusetts stands to benefit greatly from infrastructure upgrades required just to get the train to Nashua. The economic benefits of commuter rail to Manchester-Nashua will be vital to those cities, and the Lowell line stands to benefit from upgrades as well, so it seems like a win-win. Also, the line through Manchester-Nashua-Concord is also the intended future corridor between Boston and Montreal. Implementing commuter rail and upgrading the infrastructure along that route will also benefit that in the future. New Bedford may also justify commuter rail extension--I have no idea--but it's certainly not on the way to anywhere like Montreal. Again, this all depends on NH electing some level-headed people in this fall, but I think all those things argue in Manchester's favor. The state can't expect Massachusetts to do all the work or pay for it.

Border stop and layover yeard at Exit 1, Nashua previously studied is at the demolished industrial site on Spit Brook Rd. behind the IHOP, 4000 ft. across the state line. If Nashua wants to go to the mat for a downtown stop, more power to them. But wrapped up with Lowell improvements, Exit 1 has a sales pitch not at all unlike a capital-letter Wachusett extension rolled up with the Fitchburg improvements.

This sounds like a good start to me. Massachusetts gets the immediate benefits from their work and dedication to the commuter rail, and New Hampshire gets commuter rail across the state line. I hope Plaistow gets it, too, but that's not nearly as big a deal as Nashua. I'm not sure if Nashua's goal is to get a downtown station right away, but once there's a Mass. commuter-oriented station in Nashua, there should at least be some evidence of the demand. I think Nashua would eventually want to bring the line the couple miles more to spur more downtown development. Their mayor is much more clued in about that sort of thing than Manchester's is. Hopefully, with some more responsible and reasonable people in Concord, it will be clear that extending commuter rail from Nashua up to Manchester (and possibly Concord) makes sense for the state. They just can't keep sitting on their hands if they expect to get federal assistance--the FRA and FTA aren't going to want to offer gifts if they're going to keep being turned away.

F-Line, you clearly know way more about the infrastructure and politics of this than I do, am I dreaming or does this stand a chance? I mean aside from the New Hampshire politics.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Just saw a couple things regarding I-93 and the highway bill that passed in the Senate yesterday:

The bill would mean New Hampshire could borrow to raise $155 million for the widening of Interstate-93. It also would continue federal subsidies for commuter buses that ply the highway.

Of course, accepting federal money for commuter buses (most of which, I believe, are owned by the state of New Hampshire, but privately operated) is okay, but commuter rail is socialism or some nonsense. How spending exorbitant amounts of money on highway expansion isn't also socialism (or at least fiscal irresponsibility) to these ideologues is beyond me.

Shaheen sponsored several amendments attached to the bill. One would extend funding for two regional transportation projects — Amtrak’s Downeaster and the Boston Express bus service. Both receive federal subsidies used to reduce highway congestion and air pollution.

But the subsidies are limited to three years; the legislation would create a waiver of the three-year limitation.

Another amendment would continue the ability of regional planning councils to be involved in the planning of federal highway projects.

Another amendment would give small, urban transit operations the ability to use capital money, usually deemed for bus purchases, for operational expenses, such as salaries.

“This language will help Manchester Transit Authority continue delivering the highest quality public transit service at the most efficient cost to the taxpayers,” said Mike Whitten, executive director of the Manchester Transit Authority, in remarks distributed by Shaheen’s office.

I'm glad to see some public official from New Hampshire doing something for the Downeaster. I'm not clear on the three-year subsidy limit--sounds like it's limited, but the limit is being waived?

Also, I'm not sure what the impact of the involvement of regional planning councils is, but I imagine it's for the best. And the flexibility given to small transit agencies sounds like it's probably good.

So there are some good things in here--mostly in amendments--but I just can't get over the hypocrisy of the Republicans in Concord who will accept this, but not $4 million to study commuter rail!

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Kevin Landrigan wrote another update on the commuter rail study situation in Sunday's Nashua Telegraph:

Sunday, March 11, 2012
State Executive Council sends commuter rail proposal off track

The Executive Council dealt a devastating blow to the campaign to bring commuter rail business from Boston through Nashua and on to Concord.

The 3-2 vote of the council against a $3.6 million study that’s needed to get rail off the ground wasn’t a surprise.

Backers hoped they had a shot at convincing Concord Republican Councilor Dan St. Hilaire to back the plan, but he said the top long-term priority for big-time finance has to be widening Interstate 93.

But this hit wasn’t fatal, as supporters have options.

Nashua Mayor Donnalee Lozeau said she’ll pursue whether the city, rather than the state, could be the conduit for the federal grant to do the study.
This has been done in the past, but only for short-track commuter rail lines, and the Boston-to-Concord link of 78 miles is considered an urban-to-urban project.

Longtime New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority member Peter Burling said another course could be to get the Obama administration to act as the sponsor for the project.

Burling has reached out to Gov. John Lynch on this score. He hopes the governor will contact U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to sound him out on the idea.

And Burling said those critics who wanted this plan to be restricted from Boston to Nashua don’t understand an essential financial truth: The shorter line would only qualify for Federal Transit Administration financing, which delivers only 50 percent of the project cost.

At a $90 million price tag, that means the state would have to find $45 million.
Burling said when the authority looked at applying for the grant in 2009-10, this made the choice clear.

“Going all the way to Concord qualifies us for up to 95 percent funding, so that was the way to go,’’ Burling said.

“If tomorrow the Obama administration said it was willing to fully finance the rail line only to Nashua, I’d be 100 percent for it. But that doesn’t appear to be in the cards.’’

A key question for the future of the project is the future of state leadership.
Will the next governor be as avid a fan of commuter rail as Lynch has been? Surely if it’s a Republican who replaces him, the answer is no.

What will the council’s makeup be like? Currently it’s all Republicans, but many observers give Concord’s Colin Van Ostern a good chance of knocking off St. Hilaire, given that redistricting is making that district much more Democrat friendly.

Manchester Democrat Chris Pappas is widely viewed as a serious contender to replace Raymond Wieczorek, who’s retiring, although Republicans are sure to put up a solid opponent.

 

[Matthew]

Of course, accepting federal money for commuter buses (most of which, I believe, are owned by the state of New Hampshire, but privately operated) is okay, but commuter rail is socialism or some nonsense. How spending exorbitant amounts of money on highway expansion isn't also socialism (or at least fiscal irresponsibility) to these ideologues is beyond me.

So there are some good things in here--mostly in amendments--but I just can't get over the hypocrisy of the Republicans in Concord who will accept this, but not $4 million to study commuter rail!

Exactly. So why should we get involved in their fever swamp? We should focus on improving service inside MA, or to RI, and on preventing any highway widening inside MA. Let the foolish pols in NH stew in their own congestion and smog.

 

[Kahta]

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

When is the last time you saw a car with NH plates in Boston in an area served by the MBTA Monday-Friday?

Honestly, if it was going to be high speed rail from NH to Boston it might make sense, but I don't see anyone lining up to make a 3 hour train ride from Concord to Boston for their daily commute.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Why can't they take CR from Concord to Manch or Nashua? Or Manch to Con or Nash? Or Nash to Con or Manch? etc.

Maybe some people in Concord will get off in Nashua, maybe some will get off in Lowell, but then more people get on in Nashua and more get on in Lowell, etc.

Why does everyone need to be heading for North Station?

 

[FrankLloydMike]

When is the last time you saw a car with NH plates in Boston in an area served by the MBTA Monday-Friday?

Honestly, if it was going to be high speed rail from NH to Boston it might make sense, but I don't see anyone lining up to make a 3 hour train ride from Concord to Boston for their daily commute.

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but today. I live in Cambridge and work in Newton. I see cars with NH plates in both places almost everyday. And the reason the study is to be funded by FTA and FRA is because it's a study of commuter rail and the high-speed rail corridor.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Exactly. So why should we get involved in their fever swamp? We should focus on improving service inside MA, or to RI, and on preventing any highway widening inside MA. Let the foolish pols in NH stew in their own congestion and smog.

Because some of us are from NH, and the current mess up there aside, care about the place. This is the attitude that ends up killing the state--people (residents, former residents, non-residents alike) watching the O'Brien circus, and throwing their hands up in defeat. Massachusetts, as a state, and the MBTA, as a state agency, don't need to concern themselves with NH politics or rail there (at least any more than they should about RI), but people in New Hampshire and those who want to see it emerge from its current mess should.

We, as a community of people concerned about the built environment, should care. Manchester and Nashua are part of the larger metro-Boston area as much as Worcester and Providence are, and they should be connected to the rest of the area with the commuter rail network. New Hampshire needs to care, which isn't really the problem here--it needs elected officials who care. Without that, I agree that there's not much we can do, but I don't see a reason to be dismissive or defeatist.

And since Massachusetts gave New Hampshire its chief right-wing gasbag/19th century luminary, Bill O'Brien, maybe the commonwealth owes them a little neighborly concern. (I'm joking, but please don't think that politics, infrastructure, the built environment, the movement of people, or smog for that matter ends at the state line.)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

F-Line, you clearly know way more about the infrastructure and politics of this than I do, am I dreaming or does this stand a chance? I mean aside from the New Hampshire politics.

Yes. Richard Davey said in one of his Meet the GM confabs last year when he was still MBTA GM that Nashua was an example of the type of "revenue enhancement" they absolutely need to be pursuing as a multi-pronged solution to their financial issues. But then again he also alluded in that same get-together that he'd much rather be dropping a $B into the existing commuter rail than Patrick's pet FR/NB. But you can see what he's getting at there if an extension were wrapped more organically into Lowell Line improvements as a whole. Other than Worcester that's the one with the most growth potential if it weren't so operationally hamstrung by the infrastructure. We'll see that soon enough on Fitchburg when all the new track and signals are in service and that schedule gets nice and fat with +25 MPH speed. Fitchburg uncapped is tiny compared to what Lowell would do uncapped.

Problem is Fitchburg's also tiny compared to what Worcester would do uncapped, and what the Eastern Route would do uncapped, and what anything would do if they had equipment that worked. That's how big the hole is. And the PTC mandate is a nuclear bomb waiting to go off. They've done jack crap to prepare for it, and I'm not sure even a 5-year deadline extension to 2020 is going to get it all done with the route miles left to go and how total the signal replacement has to be on these old-timey automatic block northside lines. Federal fines? Put on a remidial implementation plan by the FRA as punishment? This is what happens when political dilettantes blow their wad on Yawkey headhouses and FR/NB consultants and South Acton coddling and Hingham sound fences instead of minding the gun to their heads.

Lowell, thankfully, is going to be #1 on the PTC bailout list because of the Downeaster. Amtrak is not going to let itself get dinged on compliance when the T is the only commuter rail agency on the east coast well off-target for the mandate. So I do believe Boston-Wilmington and Wilmington-Haverhill are going to get a bailout. Worcester too, but that's already cab signaled west of Framingham so not nearly as dire or a third as expensive. Get to Wilmington and going the rest of the way to Lowell is not hard, and has a good case because of the Cap Corridor. The feds will be far more interested in that than bailing them out on the Eastern Route or Reading Line. And I don't know how the dispatch control points work...whether T control truly ends at Lowell station or if it goes to the next interlocking at North Chelmsford Jct. If it's the latter than any signal replacement to Lowell automatically takes care of 3 of the 9 miles to the border. At that point...why stop there?


It's a sales pitch, and there's a lot of parties mutually served by this line: T, Amtrak, GLX in Somerville, Pan Am mainline and primary freight route to Boston, 128 park-and-rides, Haverhill expresses, largest terminal city on the northside, and high-ridership federally designated expansion corridor. It's exactly the place they should be pooling scarce resources instead of blowing it on pyramids and windmills and monuments to swing-voter brownnosing. I think they have a good case, and Davey wouldn't have singled this one out as an expansion candidate for lean times if he didn't see some leverage and consensus-building there. We'll see. Hard to have any expectations until the Legislature takes up the structural issues with the agency, but if there are reforms this is one they may try to pick up on-the-quick to seize on the likely PTC bailout and try to reaffirm some public confidence in their ability to accomplish goals without humiliation.



Incidentally, if NH wants to be total bastards about paying even for Exit 1, the alternative is...Exit 26. On the other side of the Mall a few feet on the Tyngsboro side of the state line, taking the Mall access driveway for station access. Would require some convincing of the Mall owners, but they can get the same Spit Brook Rd. layover by fronting Pan Am the money for the site then just stop 100 feet short of the state line for the platform. While collecting every penny of revenue instead of giving NH its cut. And telling Nashua, "alright guys, you want to add a downtown stop we'll run to a downtown stop...but that's your problem now because we're done spending our money." That would not be the ideal alternative for how much it would cheese off NH pols, but the T is not dependent on them to get a functionally-same border stop and layover. So there is that if the nihilists are such a lost cause that it's time to bust out the containment strategy for Live Free or Die license plates clogging our roads and commuter lots.

 

[Matthew]

I'm not being dismissive or defeatist. Just practical. Fact of the matter is, NH wants to get all the benefit and pay none of the cost. They want to leech off resources provided by MA. It's a typical selfish right-wing attitude.

Yes, Nashua and Manchester are part of the greater Boston metro area. And it is arbitrary that there is a state line dividing them from us. But that's the reality of the situation. Until they get their house in order, we need to protect ourselves from them. Commuter Rail diverts resources towards low ridership lines and away from high ridership urban rapid transit. It seems perverse to be pushing to extend Commuter Rail when we can barely sustain our current obligations. It is doubly perverse to be pushing for it into areas which are so abusive to us. One day I hope things will change. We will stop treating Commuter Rail as a counterproductive, sprawl-promoting parking lot shuttle, and it will achieve much higher farebox recovery as a result. By then, hopefully, NH will see the benefit of having it extend to their cities.

 

[whighlander]

I'm not being dismissive or defeatist. Just practical. Fact of the matter is, NH wants to get all the benefit and pay none of the cost. They want to leech off resources provided by MA. It's a typical selfish right-wing attitude.

Yes, Nashua and Manchester are part of the greater Boston metro area. And it is arbitrary that there is a state line dividing them from us. But that's the reality of the situation. Until they get their house in order, we need to protect ourselves from them. Commuter Rail diverts resources towards low ridership lines and away from high ridership urban rapid transit. It seems perverse to be pushing to extend Commuter Rail when we can barely sustain our current obligations. It is doubly perverse to be pushing for it into areas which are so abusive to us. One day I hope things will change. We will stop treating Commuter Rail as a counterproductive, sprawl-promoting parking lot shuttle, and it will achieve much higher farebox recovery as a result. By then, hopefully, NH will see the benefit of having it extend to their cities.

Mathew -- you are starting to post a la Riff -- ready, fire, aim

In almost all US metro areas -- a significant percentage of the population and a larger percentage of income and wealth resides in the suburbs compared to the center city

Boston Metro depending on your definitions is anywhere from 3+ to 5+ Million people -- even including Cambridge, Sommerville, Quincy there are less than 1 M people in the core - that means 2/3 to 4/5 of the population is suburban -- which in turn means a substantial portion of the legislators are suburban.

Try to sell a T system that doesn't serve them but puts all its resources into the inner core -- you've got one major Non-Starter

This simple observation is the motivation behind the creation of the MBTA - the old City-centric MTA couldn't come close to supporting itself and the suburban dominated legislature said "Go collect from Charlie" when the MTA came calling -- the solution was to incorporate a huge area into the district and promise some sort of service. Of course, even outside the district you need to gain support from some legislators whose towns are peripheral parts of the Boston economic region.

I've said many times, in many fora for several decades that we need to resurrect the old model of the "City State" -- leave the States as administrative entities, where appropriate 9especially in rural areas), and obviously we need the Nation State to supply its unique functions such as defense.

However, for the top 50 cities in the US -- provide them with the tools to become quasi-autonomous entities:

1) Own all of the T, Massport, BCEC and similar infrastructure
2) have an effective metro police, mega-fire (specialized functions such as Hazmat), jails, parks -- like a really functional version of the old MDC
3) have its own elected executive and legislature -- such as metropolitan county
4) be able to tax and borrow
5) -- and most critically be able to negotiate and sign MOUs with other city-states and states

Inside of the City-state the individual towns, villages, cities and neighborhoods are retained with however much local government that their residents should desire

For Boston the boundaries of the City-State would be roughly I-495 with any city / town touching or inside I-495 included and possibly some appendages

Massachusetts Legislature could do this for Boston, but ideally there should be a Federal statute or possibly a Constitutional Amendment to make sure Boston city-state could sign a CR MOU with Manchester city-state

 

[Matthew]

I am aware of the realities regarding suburban wealth and influence. Just look at Greenbush vs the Green Line extension. A $500 million line for 1000 riders? While the most densely populated city in the state gets left out in the cold? It's pretty perverse that the wealthiest residents also feel that they are entitled to some of the largest amounts of transportation subsidy. I doubt that so many people would have chosen to live so far away if it weren't for freeways built and maintained using other people's tax monies.

I am with you on "city states." I think it would be a lot more sensible if political boundaries more closely matched economically significant regions. Alas, that is even more pie-in-the-sky.

 

[whighlander]

I am aware of the realities regarding suburban wealth and influence. Just look at Greenbush vs the Green Line extension. A $500 million line for 1000 riders? While the most densely populated city in the state gets left out in the cold? It's pretty perverse that the wealthiest residents also feel that they are entitled to some of the largest amounts of transportation subsidy. I doubt that so many people would have chosen to live so far away if it weren't for freeways built and maintained using other people's tax monies.

I am with you on "city states." I think it would be a lot more sensible if political boundaries more closely matched economically significant regions. Alas, that is even more pie-in-the-sky.

Mathew --[highlight] WoW![/highlight]

I'm with you on the un-economics of Greenbush

I also regularly regret the decision of my NIMBY neighbors-to-be who nixed the Red Line through Lexington to Rt-128

That would have been the ideal TOD as the Hartwell Ave area was still evolving from having been a pig-farm. Had an Alewife-scale complex been built on the site of the recycling and town dump, with its own exit from Rt-128 -- the area between Lincoln Lab & Hanscom and Rt-128 could have been developed intensively and densely with buses continuing from Hartwell Station to Waltham and Burlington Tech clusters.

Eventually someone might suggest replacing the buses with a monorail between the Tech Super Clusters at Winter St., Hartwell and Burlington Northwest Park

Bingo! Transit heaven

And a couple of years later in my dream -- when I moved to East Lexington to work at Lincoln Lab I could walk about 5 minutes in a pleasant suburban environment and board the Red Line to work at Lincoln Lab and on the weekend or an evening to Boston and the MFA or the BSO

 

[Kahta]

Why can't they take CR from Concord to Manch or Nashua? Or Manch to Con or Nash? Or Nash to Con or Manch? etc.

Maybe some people in Concord will get off in Nashua, maybe some will get off in Lowell, but then more people get on in Nashua and more get on in Lowell, etc.

Why does everyone need to be heading for North Station?

The population density is very low in all three of those cities triple deckers in Manchester are about as dense as it gets-- as for the jobs, it's pretty evident by the low height of the buildings that there aren't that many jobs in the built up areas and certainly not enough to justify any level of transit spending. I-93 between Concord and Manchester flows at 55-60 during rush hour and its only a 4-lane highway past I-89. Concord at best is a small town that's only marginally bigger than Fitchburg. I lived there for work for 9 months, there's only one or two bars for the under-30 crowd.

Two of the three epicenters of employment in Nashua are west Nashua near and west of Route 3, and the retail area along 3A. Downtown isn't very big and like manchester suffers from a very low population and employment density outside of the converted old mills and handful of 7 story buildings.

 

[whighlander]

The population density is very low in all three of those cities triple deckers in Manchester are about as dense as it gets-- as for the jobs, it's pretty evident by the low height of the buildings that there aren't that many jobs in the built up areas and certainly not enough to justify any level of transit spending. I-93 between Concord and Manchester flows at 55-60 during rush hour and its only a 4-lane highway past I-89. Concord at best is a small town that's only marginally bigger than Fitchburg. I lived there for work for 9 months, there's only one or two bars for the under-30 crowd.

Two of the three epicenters of employment in Nashua are west Nashua near and west of Route 3, and the retail area along 3A. Downtown isn't very big and like manchester suffers from a very low population and employment density outside of the converted old mills and handful of 7 story buildings.

KAHTA -- i'm going to have to take the other side on this one;

The Merrimack River once provided power for literally millions of square feet of textile mills -- one of the birthing places of the Industrial Revolution -- those mills provided jobs for hundreds of thousands of people who lived fairly close to the mills in dense tenements

Most of the mills throughout the Merrimack Valley have long ceased to make fabric -- but the buildings in most of the cities are still there. Perhaps fewer of the tenements remain -- Nonetheless I'd bet that there is plenty of current or potential population density along an Egyptian Nile-like Merrimack Valley corridor (say about 2 miles thick) to support Commuter Rail

Of course in the modern context -- you need to have ample parking at the stations as the walk-up, bike-up, Segway-up (Home of the) crowd is insufficient

I'd make Lowell a local Hub with small trains (such as the new CNG & electric budliner) coming in to Lowell from points N and W and even possibly E then the people cross platform NorthStation Orange-Green style to a high frequency (20 minute headways) Express to Boston stopping only at Rt-128 (Anderson RTC) -- travel time under 30 minutes

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I'm not being dismissive or defeatist. Just practical. Fact of the matter is, NH wants to get all the benefit and pay none of the cost. They want to leech off resources provided by MA. It's a typical selfish right-wing attitude.

Yes, Nashua and Manchester are part of the greater Boston metro area. And it is arbitrary that there is a state line dividing them from us. But that's the reality of the situation. Until they get their house in order, we need to protect ourselves from them. Commuter Rail diverts resources towards low ridership lines and away from high ridership urban rapid transit. It seems perverse to be pushing to extend Commuter Rail when we can barely sustain our current obligations. It is doubly perverse to be pushing for it into areas which are so abusive to us. One day I hope things will change. We will stop treating Commuter Rail as a counterproductive, sprawl-promoting parking lot shuttle, and it will achieve much higher farebox recovery as a result. By then, hopefully, NH will see the benefit of having it extend to their cities.

But the only way that the Capitol Corridor is going to happen is if New Hampshire funds it--it's not going to happen if New Hampshire tries to "leech off" Massachusetts. And because of that--and perhaps unlike some in-state commuter rail projects like Greenbush--I don't think it's going to take resources away from "high ridership urban rapid transit" in Massachusetts. By the way, I agree in general that the projects like the Green Line extension should take precedent over Greenbush.

But New Hampshire isn't going to fund a Green Line extension, just as Massachusetts won't fund commuter rail in New Hampshire. Both states stand to benefit from the Capitol Corridor--more trains going between Lowell and Boston, track and signal upgrades in Massachusetts, and New Hampshire finally gets commuter rail restored since 1967, except for a pilot study cancelled by Ronald Reagan in the 1981. And both states benefit from upgrading the first phase of tracks for the proposed Boston-Montreal high-speed rail line. If I understand correctly, that's why New Hampshire is pushing for Concord-Boston and not just Nashua-Boston, because Concord and the high-speed rail corridor is what gets the FRA, not just the FTA involved.

I don't expect--and really, I don't think anyone in New Hampshire does either--Massachusetts to build, fund and operate commuter rail into New Hampshire. So I don't see a conflict between projects like the Capitol Corridor and the Green Line extension.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

The population density is very low in all three of those cities triple deckers in Manchester are about as dense as it gets-- as for the jobs, it's pretty evident by the low height of the buildings that there aren't that many jobs in the built up areas and certainly not enough to justify any level of transit spending. I-93 between Concord and Manchester flows at 55-60 during rush hour and its only a 4-lane highway past I-89. Concord at best is a small town that's only marginally bigger than Fitchburg. I lived there for work for 9 months, there's only one or two bars for the under-30 crowd.

Two of the three epicenters of employment in Nashua are west Nashua near and west of Route 3, and the retail area along 3A. Downtown isn't very big and like manchester suffers from a very low population and employment density outside of the converted old mills and handful of 7 story buildings.

I think some of those statistics are a bit misleading. Much of the eastern outskirts of Manchester are very low-density or even undeveloped land, especially around Massabesic Lake. The land area of the city is much bigger than Lowell or Lawrence, but the population is heavily concentrated in the built-up areas with a mile or so of downtown. Population density in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown Manchester is around 8000/sq mile and actually increasing in density. And as whighlander mentioned, the former textile mills are now the city's major employment center along with Elm Street, which is why there isn't a need for more than a few high-rise office buildings. That's still a pretty concentrated area within easy walking distance (or use of the free downtown buses) from a future train station.

Similarly, even though Concord is pretty small, its major population and employment center is pretty concentrated in downtown. I'd say that Nashua is the most sprawling of the three cities. As I mentioned above, Concord is really included so that the FRA gets involved in the project, not just the FTA, because of the high-speed rail corridor planned between Boston and Montreal.

A study would answer this, but I don't expect huge in-state commuter ridership in New Hampshire. I'm sure some people from the suburbs that will have stops (Merrimack, Bedford, Nashua, I believe) will take the train to NH cities or Lowell, but I'm guessing there numbers will be small. Still, I don't think its far-fetched to imagine people from those towns, as well as Nashua and Concord taking the train in to see a game at Manchester's stadium or arena, both of which were purposely built without their own parking. Or for workers, lobbyists and the like to ride between the financial center in Manchester to the political center in Concord for business.

What the assumption about population density misses, though, is the potential for future development. Perhaps even more than the lines in denser areas of Massachusetts, I think this is a major component in New Hampshire, and part of the reason why the business community is so behind it. The potential for transit-oriented development in the downtowns of Manchester, Nashua and Concord--and to a lesser extent even around some of the suburban stops--is huge. A study would likely have helped shown how great that potential is. But for New Hampshire, I think the Capitol Corridor commuter rail really needs to be seen as much as an economic development tool, as it is a transit option for present-day commuters.