New Hampshire Commuter Rail Discussion

Meanwhile Maine just spent several million dollars in capital funds on trackwork that will allow the Downeaster to operate successfully for another 10 years. By then I think passenger service of some kind will have been extended to Waterville.

gokeefe wrote:Meanwhile Maine just spent several million dollars in capital funds on trackwork that will allow the Downeaster to operate successfully for another 10 years. By then I think passenger service of some kind will have been extended to Waterville.

Trackwork that was years late in keeping up with known-known projected deterioration dates of known-known number of ties, which started way too late to avoid a year of embarrassing OTP stumbles, which they were caught flat-footed in addressing when service collapsed during peak months.

Look, I know NH sets the floor for proactive New England rail policy, but that's some furious spinning to paint the DE's year from hell as some sort of feather in NNEPRA's cap much less best practices somebody else should try to emulate. Years like this most certainly are not going to be an avenue by which they're somehow going to be trusted to expand their operations. If anything Maine and the 2015 Downeaster fiscal year is a cautionary tale in that if they don't learn from history and forward-fund the next round of cycled tie replacement to happen before track conditions go to spit...they're going to repeat it within the Downeaster's next 10 years and upend any serious consideration of investing in further expansion.

This year was motivation to do better going forward, but please...save the victory lap for when it's earned. They don't give out medals for "But it's just a flesh wound!"

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

gokeefe wrote:Meanwhile Maine just spent several million dollars in capital funds on trackwork that will allow the Downeaster to operate successfully for another 10 years. By then I think passenger service of some kind will have been extended to Waterville.

Trackwork that was years late in keeping up with known-known projected deterioration dates of known-known number of ties, which started way too late to avoid a year of embarrassing OTP stumbles, which they were caught flat-footed in addressing when service collapsed during peak months.

Look, I know NH sets the floor for proactive New England rail policy, but that's some furious spinning to paint the DE's year from hell as some sort of feather in NNEPRA's cap much less best practices somebody else should try to emulate. Years like this most certainly are not going to be an avenue by which they're somehow going to be trusted to expand their operations. If anything Maine and the 2015 Downeaster fiscal year is a cautionary tale in that if they don't learn from history and forward-fund the next round of cycled tie replacement to happen before track conditions go to spit...they're going to repeat it within the Downeaster's next 10 years and upend any serious consideration of investing in further expansion.

This year was motivation to do better going forward, but please...save the victory lap for when it's earned. They don't give out medals for "But it's just a flesh wound!"

All valid points. Cut it any way you want, Maine just spent several million dollars on trains that are actually running and are going to keep running. I mention the point because it is worth reminding the audience of this thread that New Hampshire's Commuter Rail policies are not happening in a vacuum. They have two very proactive neighbors who have been working this issue much harder than they have and are reaping (or attempting to....) the rewards. Why is that worth remembering? Because it should help increase the determination of those who seek to have rail passenger service in New Hampshire for the right reasons.

gokeefe wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

gokeefe wrote:Meanwhile Maine just spent several million dollars in capital funds on trackwork that will allow the Downeaster to operate successfully for another 10 years. By then I think passenger service of some kind will have been extended to Waterville.

Trackwork that was years late in keeping up with known-known projected deterioration dates of known-known number of ties, which started way too late to avoid a year of embarrassing OTP stumbles, which they were caught flat-footed in addressing when service collapsed during peak months.

Look, I know NH sets the floor for proactive New England rail policy, but that's some furious spinning to paint the DE's year from hell as some sort of feather in NNEPRA's cap much less best practices somebody else should try to emulate. Years like this most certainly are not going to be an avenue by which they're somehow going to be trusted to expand their operations. If anything Maine and the 2015 Downeaster fiscal year is a cautionary tale in that if they don't learn from history and forward-fund the next round of cycled tie replacement to happen before track conditions go to spit...they're going to repeat it within the Downeaster's next 10 years and upend any serious consideration of investing in further expansion.

This year was motivation to do better going forward, but please...save the victory lap for when it's earned. They don't give out medals for "But it's just a flesh wound!"

All valid points. Cut it any way you want, Maine just spent several million dollars on trains that are actually running and are going to keep running. I mention the point because it is worth reminding the audience of this thread that New Hampshire's Commuter Rail policies are not happening in a vacuum. They have two very proactive neighbors who have been working this issue much harder than they have and are reaping (or attempting to....) the rewards. Why is that worth remembering? Because it should help increase the determination of those who seek to have rail passenger service in New Hampshire for the right reasons.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The Downeaster benefits Maine because Portland, Freeport and Brunswick are prime tourist destinations. Commuter rail to Nashua is... not. It is only going to help commuters from the Nashua/Manchester environs get to work faster. IE nowhere near the economic benefits as Maine.

Unless those communities that will benefit most from this pony up it simply isn't going to happen, nor should it. There is a whole lot more to NH than Nashua.

A couple of years ago, US-3 south was at absolute capacity limit during rush hour at 495 Lowell. Some things need to happen.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

Rockingham Racer wrote:Haven't we been here before? It seems that one governor undoes what the previous one has done. One step forward, then two back. I really do hope that passenger rail service will return to New Hampshire, but in the end, it seems like a steep, uphill run.

It's not the Gov., it's that absurdly huge Legislature that has wild mood swings every election. NH Gov. is a relatively powerless position because in one 4-year term the Gov. may have two separate Legislative terms that are ideological 180's from each other and spend all their time undoing every initiative passed in the previous 2-year term. If a bill can't be boobytrapped with a timeline that outlasts the bipolar flips in the House--which is hard--there's no certainty that the initiative will ever survive long enough to get enacted. Rumor has it that Hassan has gotten so sick of this that she's going to challenge vulnerable Kelly Ayotte for the U.S. Senate seat instead of finishing out her current term as Gov.


So, yeah...positive step for Nashua CR today. It doesn't mean a whole lot in the long run unless the Legislative term taking effect in January 2017 leaves this bill alone. And for that matter so does the following term taking effect January 2019.

The real problem has been the Executive Council. NH is unique in the regardless of what the Governor approves, the five members of the Executive Council have veto power over all purchases over $10,000. Currently, three are Republicans, two are Democrats. The Democrats have consistently been pro-rail, but the R's, led chiefly by Chris Sununu, have been vocally anti-rail. This has allowed the EC to block budgets for the Rail Authority, grant applications, and study seed money.

This has been the root cause of why Nashua is staking out on its own in many ways re: rail expansion. The EC cannot stop them, as long as no State money is involved.

Until one anti-rail is replaced by a pro-rail, not much will change in NH

artman and f-line,

Some serious misinformation needs to be corrected.

Firstly, the governor of New Hampshire has a two-year term, not four. Therefore, it is unlikely that Governor Hassan is so fed up that she is thinking of quitting mid-term; it just ain't so.

Secondly, the Executive Council (no other state has one) has the primary responsibility of controlling spending. I would assume that is most unlikely that the state would endorse any plan to spend money to expedite moving commuters daily to another state where they can contribute to that other state's economy with the help of their fellow New Hampshire taxpayers.

This is not primarily a political matter. Anyone who studied eighth-grade geography realizes that the distances from Boston that have been under consideration (mainly Nashua and Portsmouth) are simply too short, and the potential traffic from New Hampshire is too little, to warrant extension of rail service. Consider that the population of the entire state is roughly equal to that of metropolitan Boston; would you invest in such a project?

ferroequinarchaeologist wrote:This is not primarily a political matter. Anyone who studied eighth-grade geography realizes that the distances from Boston that have been under consideration (mainly Nashua and Portsmouth) are simply too short, and the potential traffic from New Hampshire is too little, to warrant extension of rail service. Consider that the population of the entire state is roughly equal to that of metropolitan Boston; would you invest in such a project?

I find this a preposterous presumption. Traffic counts alone clearly make the case that there is potential for commuter rail. Certainly more so than Maine.

If you're talking about public investment I think it would likely be determined to be "worth it" under normal cost benefit analytical methods used throughout the U.S. on heavy rail questions.

ferroequinarchaeologist wrote:I would assume that is most unlikely that the state would endorse any plan to spend money to expedite moving commuters daily to another state where they can contribute to that other state's economy with the help of their fellow New Hampshire taxpayers.

Heh; I think one reason the (Nineteen-Seventies?) slogan "Make It in Massachusetts" went away was because some wag added "Spend It in New Hampshire."

gokeefe wrote:

ferroequinarchaeologist wrote:This is not primarily a political matter. Anyone who studied eighth-grade geography realizes that the distances from Boston that have been under consideration (mainly Nashua and Portsmouth) are simply too short, and the potential traffic from New Hampshire is too little, to warrant extension of rail service. Consider that the population of the entire state is roughly equal to that of metropolitan Boston; would you invest in such a project?

I find this a preposterous presumption. Traffic counts alone clearly make the case that there is potential for commuter rail. Certainly more so than Maine.

If you're talking about public investment I think it would likely be determined to be "worth it" under normal cost benefit analytical methods used throughout the U.S. on heavy rail questions.

In addition, extending commuter rail into southern NH has the potential to stimulate growth there.

ferroequinarchaeologist wrote:artman and f-line,

Some serious misinformation needs to be corrected.

Firstly, the governor of New Hampshire has a two-year term, not four. Therefore, it is unlikely that Governor Hassan is so fed up that she is thinking of quitting mid-term; it just ain't so.

Secondly, the Executive Council (no other state has one) has the primary responsibility of controlling spending. I would assume that is most unlikely that the state would endorse any plan to spend money to expedite moving commuters daily to another state where they can contribute to that other state's economy with the help of their fellow New Hampshire taxpayers.

This is not primarily a political matter. Anyone who studied eighth-grade geography realizes that the distances from Boston that have been under consideration (mainly Nashua and Portsmouth) are simply too short, and the potential traffic from New Hampshire is too little, to warrant extension of rail service. Consider that the population of the entire state is roughly equal to that of metropolitan Boston; would you invest in such a project?

I hesitate to call anything I wrote or 'mis-wrote' as 'serious misinformation.'

The rail study that looked into the Plaistow extension was signed off on by the Executive Council two years ago, when they had a brief 3-2 Democratic majority. It is currently back to the usual configuration and lo and behold, the impetus is gone. Make of that what you will.

ferroequinarchaeologist wrote:I would assume that is most unlikely that the state would endorse any plan to spend money to expedite moving commuters daily to another state where they can contribute to that other state's economy with the help of their fellow New Hampshire taxpayers.

But people who work in Mass. and live in NH pay substantial property taxes and spend a lot of money. I suspect NH rather eagerly tries to make it attractive for people who work in Mass. to live in southern NH. I think there are various other reasons the state won't support commuter rail, including the practical reasons you've given (population, population density, etc.). Also (addressed to everyone) the state of NH doesn't actually have a lot of money to spend. Most of the taxes are town property taxes, remember -- no state sales or personal income taxes at all. Gas tax, yes, and tolls, so you get those well-maintained NH roads, but not a lot of other state tax revenue that could support a service like this.

artman wrote:The real problem has been the Executive Council. NH is unique in the regardless of what the Governor approves, the five members of the Executive Council have veto power over all purchases over $10,000. Currently, three are Republicans, two are Democrats. The Democrats have consistently been pro-rail, but the R's, led chiefly by Chris Sununu, have been vocally anti-rail. This has allowed the EC to block budgets for the Rail Authority, grant applications, and study seed money.

This has been the root cause of why Nashua is staking out on its own in many ways re: rail expansion. The EC cannot stop them, as long as no State money is involved.

I could see this playing out in Portsmouth down the line if they really want MBTA service badly enough. Not to mention -as F line has pointed out in the past- Newburyport can't stand that Rte. 1 cut through the center of town. Package rail improvements (which would have to include a new movable bridge) together with highway improvements and it might get enough traction. So if all parties except for the EC in NH were to band together and chip in I would think that it would be enough to get rail service extended there. The Seacoast has historically been the most pro-rail part of NH, correct?

Gentlemen,
>>potential for commuter rail<<
>>potential to stimulate growth<<

To quote Charlie Brown of Peanuts fame: "There is no heavier burden than a great potential."

Personally, I would love to see commuter rail extended to Plaistow; it would be only about three miles from my house. I just don't see any realistic economic justification - it's all "potential" and "projected". Maybe another ten years of population density increases will do it.

PBM

ferroequinarchaeologist wrote:Gentlemen,
>>potential for commuter rail<<
>>potential to stimulate growth<<

To quote Charlie Brown of Peanuts fame: "There is no heavier burden than a great potential."

Personally, I would love to see commuter rail extended to Plaistow; it would be only about three miles from my house. I just don't see any realistic economic justification - it's all "potential" and "projected". Maybe another ten years of population density increases will do it.

PBM

The Downeaster provides lots of commuter seats, often filling its trains into Boston at 7 AM and out at 5 PM. With its convenient stops in Dover, Durham, and Exeter, food service, multi ride and monthly tickets, and an express run from Haverhill, it draws passengers away from the MBTA Haverhill Line. The only downside is Guilford/Pan-Am and its hotshot freight service, traveling at a breakneck 30 mph.