Potential MBTA Southern NH Service

Mod Note: This IS a politically charged issue that cannot be adequately covered without discussing its political aspect. That said, we cannot go down the politically partisan rabbit holes that will make this discussion unproductive. Let's all agree that NH and MA have mutually unique government structures neither of which are without fault, and make sure any such mention is directly pertinent to CR service over the border. I do not shun political discussion, but it MUST remain relevant, respectful, and constructive.

In retrospect my most recent one in this topic was a bit edgy. As a lifetime resident, when it comes to MA government I'm pretty cynical.

I keep coming back to, if the demand is there for service, the passengers should be willing to pay a reasonable amount which should cover the cost. It did in the past when passenger volumes were much lower, albeit for railroads with integrated operations.

I keep coming back to, if the demand is there for service, the passengers should be willing to pay a reasonable amount which should cover the cost.

I get what you mean, but if we used the same model with autos and auto infrastructure, nobody would drive, it'll be the same story with passenger rail, this is a part of a larger debate of subsidies vs privatization, which really only has two solutions, either we, A. drop the subsidies and privatize everything so that every individual pays the true price for their daily commute (higher prices to drive/use public transport in exchange for lower taxes) or B. subsidize everything so that the cost of their daily commute is mostly covered by subsidies (lower prices to drive/use public transport in exchange for higher taxes).
Most of the world has already made it clear that they prefer the second option, so If we are already heavily subsidizing roads, why should we not do the same with railroads, and if lower subsidies are desired, then why not drop the subsidies on roads and run everything private and for-profit?

BandA wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:08 pm...passengers should be willing to pay a reasonable amount which should cover the cost. It did in the past when passenger volumes were much lower, albeit for railroads with integrated operations.

No it didn't. Passenger rail was always subsidized, it was just once done so privately. When railroads decided to stop funding their own services, the gov't had to step up.

BandA wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:08 pm I keep coming back to, if the demand is there for service, the passengers should be willing to pay a reasonable amount which should cover the cost. It did in the past when passenger volumes were much lower, albeit for railroads with integrated operations.

The bolded part explains how it was never the case that passenger service covered its costs. It was first subsidized by freight operations, now it's subsidized by tax payers.

What about street railroads? They were quite prosperous in the before 1910 era, and had little or no freight revenue. The Pennsylvannia Railroad didn't build stations like Penn Station if they were losing money on passenger service. The Boston and Albany hired HH Richardson to design granite stations and Frederick Law Olmstead to landscape them, that doesn't happen if you are losing money on passenger service. The NY Central built Grand Central Depot, rebuilt it as Grand Central Station, then Grand Central Terminal. They wouldn't have done that if they were losing money on passenger service.

BandA wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:21 pm What about street railroads? They were quite prosperous in the before 1910 era, and had little or no freight revenue.

The subsidy is in the street. The ROW was owned publicly.

The Pennsylvannia Railroad didn't build stations like Penn Station if they were losing money on passenger service. The Boston and Albany hired HH Richardson to design granite stations and Frederick Law Olmstead to landscape them, that doesn't happen if you are losing money on passenger service. The NY Central built Grand Central Depot, rebuilt it as Grand Central Station, then Grand Central Terminal. They wouldn't have done that if they were losing money on passenger service.

It's well documented that these railroads lost money on passenger service. This took the form of the aforementioned freight subsidy, but in fact, it also took the form of government subsidies via land grants, favorable assistance for land takings, government underwritten bonds, favorable bankruptcy treatment, etc. There were probably some profitable passenger services, just as there are today (ie the NEC). But for the most part, such services were uncommon. And they would have ended much earlier than they did without significant public regulation mandating service maintenance. The stations were probably marketing decisions, more than investments in the service itself.

If you read up on the economics of the building of Grand Central Terminal, you'll find that it was the ability to sell/rent the "air rights" over the trackage in NYC that made it possible to work. Without all the hotels and office buildings paying rent, it would never been financially doable.

mackdave

Given that HB 1432 is now in the NH Senate (Transportation; SJ6), does anyone know when the Senate will be voting on it or what the next step is?
- Thanks

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_s ... anced.aspx implies a hearing earlier today at 11AM

HB1432
Year: 2022
Title: prohibiting the use of state funds for new passenger rail projects.
General Status:
SENATE
House Status
PASSED/ADOPTED
Senate Status:
IN COMMITTEE
Next/Last Hearing:
Senate Transportation
1/13/2022 at 11:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 11:00 a.m.

In the Senate's Committee, so from here it is either rejected or passed (or neither like in the House's Committee) and then if passed is elected on? Or is the Senate's way different?
- Thanks

At least some freight railroads operated passenger service in exchange for putting their tracks on public streets and land. So to the extent that the passenger operation by itself ran at a loss, that was what the railroad was paying for use of public land.

Not absolutely sure whether the Sanford & Cape Porpoise later the Atlantic Shore Line (part of whose right of way is the Seashore Trolley Museum ) was in this category.

According to the Bill Docket under HB 1432 on the New Hampshire General Court's website, the next hearing on HB 1432 will take place on 4/19/2022, at 1:30 PM.
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_s ... &inflect=2

NEW ARTICLE: "Friends, foes of commuter rail square off"

Apr. 19—CONCORD — Manchester and Nashua business and political leaders clashed with fiscal conservatives over whether to adopt a law that bans using any state dollars on the proposed commuter rail project from Boston to southern New Hampshire.

Leaders of the Greater Manchester and Nashua chambers of commerce said the bill could stop any progress on the Capitol Corridor Project even as the state is awaiting the results of a $5.4 million report on engineering, finances and environmental issues.

https://news.yahoo.com/friends-foes-com ... 00666.html

Looks like this debate is reaching its climactic point, any thoughts?

probably going to be a party line vote. Are there more democrats or republicans in the senate? Then if it passes the governor will sign it as he doesn't know how NH CR subsidy funds can be found.