Missing HSR Corridor Designations

^ They elected a lot of Tea Party Republicans to the state house in 2010.
 
Nexis4jersey said:
But the Majority of the state wants Rail services....so there going against the people?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's how it works when you have a poorly structured government with an excessively large, part-time, unprofessional, unpaid legislature. Studies have shown that this type of legislative structure begets high turnover, poor policy, and poor policy correlation with the ideological views of voters.

Essentially, no one competent wants to be a legislator because there's no pay, no staff, and because and the body is so large that one member wields little if any influence. And once you get elected, there's little benefit to keeping the job. So extreme, ideologically-motivated legislators tend to get elected, care little about the views of their constituents, do what they want, and eventually get turned out. It's a terrible way to run a government, but that's NH for you.
 
Nexis4jersey said:
But the Majority of the state wants Rail services....so there going against the people?
Click to expand...

Do you know how easy it is to get elected to the NH Legislature? There's 400 members for 103 districts. Per Wikipedia each legislator represents an avg. of 3300 people, and if the U.S. Congress were apportioned that way there'd be 99,000 House members. Try herding those cats. Now consider how extreme the population skews in NH are and how impossible it would be to draw equal-representation districts. And then consider that they are part-time and basically work for free for the whole two year-term, and what that does to cut down the pol talent pool.

You end up with triple-digit seats that are little more than glorified Board of Alderman campaigns, where some old-man-yells-at-cloud wack job who does nothing but spam every town meeting about how "those punk kids..." are ruining everything can through persistence make enough noise to pick up the several hundred votes needed in some podunk outpost to suddenly find themselves wielding a state-level vote they are totally unprepared to exercise. The turnover rate in the House is extremely high because so few members have the attention span to stick it out for more than one term, and it's extremely susceptible to wild ideological swings term-to-term because all it takes is micro-shifts in voter enthusiasm to put some other old-man-yells-at-cloud in the same seat.

Citizen government at its purest. And most terrifying. Whatever...it's their constitutional choice. But they do end up with sessions like this one once or twice a decade that go scorched-earth, and it does what it does to any semblance of long-term planning.

The Senate's a more regular body...24 members, more traditional career pol membership. Although still a part-time job. But the ideological furor of the House definitely influences the Senate races so it's also more volatile to mood swings than most Senate bodies in other states and rewards furor over common sense. This is how population centers like Nashua and Portsmouth continually get shit on by the Legislature, media outlets like the Manchester Union-Leader editorial board still hold unusual sway by stirring the pot, and the boonies and entrenched political hotbeds like Concord play zero-sum games ("I win if you lose") with other regions of their own state out of spite and end up hurting themselves in the process.


It may easily swing back this year...the 2008 election swung a 216-174 D advantage because of the enthusiasm gap. But you can easily see why long-term efforts like passenger rail are futile. It takes successive terms of relatively unified front to push it through, and they just don't do that. That's why Nashua's experiment of going it alone, dealing directly with the Feds and MA, and shooting for a public-private partnership for a downtown station is worth watching. If they can pull that off and get the Lowell Line to town it changes the game for the pockets (like the Seacoast) more uniformly supportive of these efforts...but continually punished by other parts of the state out of spite. I don't know if it'll work, but it's an experiment worth trying.


EDIT: massmotorist beat me to it with more succinct explanation.
 
Whats the story with Plaistow , why is this boondoggle going through they should fix the bridge over the Merrimack River which is crumbling...
 
Nexis4jersey said:
Whats the story with Plaistow , why is this boondoggle going through they should fix the bridge over the Merrimack River which is crumbling...
Click to expand...

It's not going through. The local NIMBY's shrieked and shrieked some more about the layover yard...the one that would clean up the Superfund industrial site and be cleaner than the contaminated nothing that's there now...and passed a town ordinance to thumbs-down it.

As it would be fed funded by a stimulus grant the state of NH is hands-off supportive of this one (much like their freeloading off the Downeaster) and it's purely the Plaistow townsfolk driving the opposition. These are the same people who would prefer to erect a border fence than ever be caught dead cooperating with Massholes. The same kind of folks who elect state reps who want to blow NHDOT money erecting highway signs at the border saying "WARNING! Massachusetts 2000 ft. ahead" out of spite.

It's not dead yet. The stimulus grant has been put in suspended animation, but hasn't been withdrawn. The stakeholders want to calm things down and take another run at them an election or two from now when there may be fewer NIMBY extremists running the town. But they're probably quietly scoping a Plan B layover yard now. The layover is what they need, because if the T doesn't get out of Bradford it can't expand Haverhill service. The station was a throw-in for location convenience at the layover yard siting. If they can find Plan B closer to Haverhill station they won't bother with the extension...but it's the layover that they badly need.


The Merrimack bridge is in final design and got a stimulus grant for that. It is quite likely going to be funded under the fed government's new trial program on the NEC for expedited EIS's on replacing bridges. If that goes smoothly on the Connecticut River movable bridge in Old Saybrook, the Merrimack is quite likely going to be expedited replacement #2. They've already purchased the land on the southerly side of the river where all the construction will be staged and the replacement bridge parts moved into position. Won't be a "Fast 14"-style replacement by any means because of its size, but they are shooting for partial prefab assembly at the staging site.

They not only need it before it tips over, but it's a condition of the Patriot Corridor and Downeaster obligations to Pan Am to uprate the weight limit across the river. It's the last blocker to settle for allowing 286,000 lb. freight cars between Lawrence and Portland (they're just about finished with the uprate west of Lawrence).
 
Don't we need to go through Plaistow to get over to Merrimac and Amesbury?

Or are those places not worth a commuter rail extension to? Upon closer examination, they seem kind of small.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Don't we need to go through Plaistow to get over to Merrimac and Amesbury?

Or are those places not worth a commuter rail extension to? Upon closer examination, they seem kind of small.
Click to expand...

No one would ever reactivate that line for commuter rail. It spends most of its time in the forest with few abutters and only a handful of nearby streets before it dead-ends in downtown Merrimac. State doesn't even own it...it reverted to town control after abandonment. I think there were only 1 or 2 customers at each end of the line because of how buffered it is from property lines. Only 6300 people live in Merrimac...that's in the middle of the big population cavity west of 95 through the forest between Middleton and the state line.


Amesbury wasn't served by that branch. There was another stub line that forked off the now-abandoned section of the Eastern Route in Salisbury. Newburyport's an easy drive from there so there'd be no demand even if the Eastern Route were restored to Seabrook or points further. And that branch also reverted to town control after B&M abandoned it.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
No one would ever reactivate that line for commuter rail. It spends most of its time in the forest with few abutters and only a handful of nearby streets before it dead-ends in downtown Merrimac. State doesn't even own it...it reverted to town control after abandonment. I think there were only 1 or 2 customers at each end of the line because of how buffered it is from property lines. Only 6300 people live in Merrimac...that's in the middle of the big population cavity west of 95 through the forest between Middleton and the state line.


Amesbury wasn't served by that branch. There was another stub line that forked off the now-abandoned section of the Eastern Route in Salisbury. Newburyport's an easy drive from there so there'd be no demand even if the Eastern Route were restored to Seabrook or points further.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

That's really the only thing Plaistow can actually obstruct, right? Anything else worth hitting on the Downeaster Corridor (Dover, Durham-UNH, Newmarket) can be reached from a branch route out of Portsmouth?
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
It's not going through. The local NIMBY's shrieked and shrieked some more about the layover yard...the one that would clean up the Superfund industrial site and be cleaner than the contaminated nothing that's there now...and passed a town ordinance to thumbs-down it.

As it would be fed funded by a stimulus grant the state of NH is hands-off supportive of this one (much like their freeloading off the Downeaster) and it's purely the Plaistow townsfolk driving the opposition. These are the same people who would prefer to erect a border fence than ever be caught dead cooperating with Massholes. The same kind of folks who elect state reps who want to blow NHDOT money erecting highway signs at the border saying "WARNING! Massachusetts 2000 ft. ahead" out of spite.

It's not dead yet. The stimulus grant has been put in suspended animation, but hasn't been withdrawn. The stakeholders want to calm things down and take another run at them an election or two from now when there may be fewer NIMBY extremists running the town. But they're probably quietly scoping a Plan B layover yard now. The layover is what they need, because if the T doesn't get out of Bradford it can't expand Haverhill service. The station was a throw-in for location convenience at the layover yard siting. If they can find Plan B closer to Haverhill station they won't bother with the extension...but it's the layover that they badly need.


The Merrimack bridge is in final design and got a stimulus grant for that. It is quite likely going to be funded under the fed government's new trial program on the NEC for expedited EIS's on replacing bridges. If that goes smoothly on the Connecticut River movable bridge in Old Saybrook, the Merrimack is quite likely going to be expedited replacement #2. They've already purchased the land on the southerly side of the river where all the construction will be staged and the replacement bridge parts moved into position. Won't be a "Fast 14"-style replacement by any means because of its size, but they are shooting for partial prefab assembly at the staging site.

They not only need it before it tips over, but it's a condition of the Patriot Corridor and Downeaster obligations to Pan Am to uprate the weight limit across the river. It's the last blocker to settle for allowing 286,000 lb. freight cars between Lawrence and Portland (they're just about finished with the uprate west of Lawrence).
Click to expand...

What? Thats insane , who turns down the chance to scrub a superfund site , down here there's a waiting list and people can't wait to get rid of the sites which are turned into parks like in Newark and Jersey City... I Guess the Toxic waste has rotted there brains up there... They claim they want economy growth but at the same time balk at everything hence why there state hasn't grown much. Mass and Maine should respond by not widening there highways , you either take the train or don't bother coming here... Prefab bridges seem to be all the rage , down here they plan on replacing the Portal Bridge with 2 Double Arch Prefab bridges and overall NJT has replaced 15 bridges this way over the past 10 years....only a few left to replace. On a side note the T should extend Commuter rail services to Salisbury then pressure NH to at least restore to Portsmouth.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Fair enough.

That's really the only thing Plaistow can actually obstruct, right? Anything else worth hitting on the Downeaster Corridor (Dover, Durham-UNH, Newmarket) can be reached from a branch route out of Portsmouth?
Click to expand...

Plaistow doesn't officially obstruct anything. It's only desired because the T needs a new layover yard to mitigate the noise/fumes at Bradford and have enough storage to expand service. Plaistow was the best and most-buffered layover site, and since the site was right off NH 125 and the shopping center it was natural to plonk down a station as a package. The annual subsidy to the state of NH for the 1/2 mile of service across the border and station maint was a few hundred grand per year, with a $9M state obligation for the station construction after the fed grant took care of the rest. It's a deal that the parking revenues would pay off in-total and eventually turn a profit on, so they have no problem with it.

If there's a viable Plan B layover on the MA side, they don't need Plaistow station at all and end of the line will continue to be Haverhill. Or maybe they'll rehash the Rosemont plan from 1980 for a barebones station near 495. Doesn't hurt if Plaistow doesn't happen...provided they can relocate the layover.


As for further commuter rail...New Hampshire's got to pay for it. And there's no way they're paying for it on the lower-density Western Route until they go full-bore on Nashua-Manchester-Concord. So don't hold your breath. Hopefully the Downeaster schedule keeps growing enough to float a little demand here in the interim, but restoring the old pre-1965 Boston-Durham service that lasted into Year 2 of the MBTA era before being truncated at Haverhill is a distant #2 on the pecking order.

The Seacoast wants Portsmouth service and would happily take a limited interim jog down the Portsmouth Branch from Newfields until the Eastern Route gets figured out. But that forks off the mainline between Exeter and Newmarket with very little on the branch in between Newfields and Peace Airport/95 so there's not much in the way of ridership draws outside of Plaistow, Exeter, and downtown Portsmouth. I don't think that's going to cut it. And the Seacoast knows it, so they're focusing their energy on the Eastern Route. Portsmouth Branch is just the compromise they'd settle for if it came down to that or nothing.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
As for further commuter rail...New Hampshire's got to pay for it. And there's no way they're paying for it on the lower-density Western Route until they go full-bore on Nashua-Manchester-Concord. So don't hold your breath. Hopefully the Downeaster schedule keeps growing enough to float a little demand here in the interim, but restoring the old pre-1965 Boston-Durham service that lasted into Year 2 of the MBTA era before being truncated at Haverhill is a distant #2 on the pecking order.

The Seacoast wants Portsmouth service and would happily take a limited interim jog down the Portsmouth Branch from Newfields until the Eastern Route gets figured out. But that forks off the mainline between Exeter and Newmarket with very little on the branch in between Newfields and Peace Airport/95 so there's not much in the way of ridership draws outside of Plaistow, Exeter, and downtown Portsmouth. I don't think that's going to cut it. And the Seacoast knows it, so they're focusing their energy on the Eastern Route. Portsmouth Branch is just the compromise they'd settle for if it came down to that or nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they shouldn't, or the Eastern Route shouldn't happen. Just the opposite.

What I'm thinking is, Eastern Route Boston-Portsmouth, then NHDOT / NHRR service Portsmouth-Dover via that branch. This is useful because if Boston-Durham Commuter Rail failed once, it'll probably fail again, especially considering that the Downeaster fare is $16 BON-DHM. I can guarantee you the MBTA would NEVER charge less than that. (They'd probably try and charge more!)

Durham-Portsmouth is far more valuable as a commuter line than Durham-Boston, and without it, Portsmouth residents trying to go to UNH get to go all the way down to Boston just to jog all the way back up on the Downeaster.

(Related question: is there any way to, assuming we got Portsmouth-Durham online, continue the jog west to eventually connect up a Portsmouth-Manchester-Concord line?)
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
I'm not saying they shouldn't, or the Eastern Route shouldn't happen. Just the opposite.

What I'm thinking is, Eastern Route Boston-Portsmouth, then NHDOT / NHRR service Portsmouth-Dover via that branch. This is useful because if Boston-Durham Commuter Rail failed once, it'll probably fail again, especially considering that the Downeaster fare is $16 BON-DHM. I can guarantee you the MBTA would NEVER charge less than that. (They'd probably try and charge more!)

Durham-Portsmouth is far more valuable as a commuter line than Durham-Boston, and without it, Portsmouth residents trying to go to UNH get to go all the way down to Boston just to jog all the way back up on the Downeaster.

(Related question: is there any way to, assuming we got Portsmouth-Durham online, continue the jog west to eventually connect up a Portsmouth-Manchester-Concord line?)
Click to expand...

Portsmouth-Durham isn't doable without a backup move. The junction is N-E/S-W direction only and there's very little room to jam in a northbound wye around Route 108 and the embankment it sits on: http://goo.gl/maps/DePw1. Plaistow-Exeter-Newfields-Portsmouth only. That's why it's relegated to Eastern Route consolation prize status only. There's just not enough density en route to support that service pattern.

The Portsmouth Branch used to keep going west and meet the NH Main in downtown Manchester at a junction that did point north to Concord. But it's been abandoned since the mid-90's, is partially trailed, misses the airport stop (and can't reach it without a reverse move), is a very tight fit through downtown Manchester, and passes through some low density east of there. Little freight upside, and nearby NH 101 just isn't bad enough between the Manchester outskirts and Exeter to merit a double-up with rail. State has it landbanked and well-preserved because it's one of the more useful reactivation corridors, but "useful" is all relative here. It's got no defined need to fill.
 
FYI...rumor has it that tomorrow night is going to be the first 165 MPH Acela equipment test up here.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Okay, so why not ignore that junction and build a new one on the other side of 108?

I'm not seeing anything that would actively prevent that.
Click to expand...

1) That dude's house and yard.

2) You still have to justify the ridership between Durham (pop: 14,000), Newmarket (pop: 8900) and Portsmouth (pop: 21,000). If Haverhill (pop: 60,900) from points south to Plaistow (pop: 7600) to Exeter (pop: 14,300) to Newfields (pop: 1600) to Portsmouth is dubious ridership and an unsatisfactory compromise from the Eastern Route, then coming from the north and actually sinking upgrade money into it is wholly unsupportable. But at least the Haverhill extension + diversion has some basis in plausibility since the running distance for the pre-'65 Boston-Dover line is comparable with a Portsmouth Branch diversion. But I doubt anyone has taken a direct train from Durham to Portsmouth since the Model T first went on sale a hundred years ago.


Sorry...this is another Transit OCD fantasy not even close to worth the energy of obsessing over.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
1) That dude's house.

2) You still have to justify the ridership between Durham (pop: 14,000), Newmarket (pop: 8900) and Portsmouth (pop: 21,000). If Haverhill (pop: 60,900) and points south to Plaistow (pop: 7600) to Exeter (pop: 14,300) to Newfields (pop: 1600) to Portsmouth is dubious ridership and an unsatisfactory compromise from the Eastern Route, then coming from the north and actually sinking upgrade money into it is wholly unsupportable.


Sorry...this is another Transit OCD fantasy not even close to worth the energy of obsessing over.
Click to expand...

Unless the owner of that house turns out to be the singularly most well-connected person in all of New Hampshire, I don't think one person on their own is going to be able to hold out for long. Nor do I think they'd be immune to being bought out.

As for justifying the ridership numbers... Portsmouth - Newmarket - Durham - Dover - Somersworth - Rochester. Unfortunately, every other way out of Rochester is absolute garbage, so there's no going farther than that, but I'd hardly call it a 'transit OCD fantasy.'
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Unless the owner of that house turns out to be the singularly most well-connected person in all of New Hampshire, I don't think one person on their own is going to be able to hold out for long. Nor do I think they'd be immune to being bought out.

As for justifying the ridership numbers... Portsmouth - Newmarket - Durham - Dover - Somersworth - Rochester. Unfortunately, every other way out of Rochester is absolute garbage, so there's no going farther than that, but I'd hardly call it a 'transit OCD fantasy.'
Click to expand...

Huh??? Now we're including the Conway Branch too? That's a total gobbledygook routing that involves coordination with a second private track owner and freight carrier, and two right-angle turns at the junctions for a Z-formation route way more inefficient than NH 16. All to hit a few more towns with painfully lower population than any shot off the Haverhill Line...and still with no big city terminus.


You're right. I wouldn't call this Transit OCD. I'd call it Super-duper Transit OCD. Every study wasted on one of these is resources diverted from building something more important sooner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top