Potential MBTA Southern NH Service

So seems like a majority in this forum at least, since funding cannot be agreed on, it should be the NO BUILD OPTION. Lets just kick the can down the road for another generation.

And as we all know, all major policy decisions are made via railroad.net.

As a resident of southern NH, I wouldn't be completely opposed to footing most of the bill for if (in my opinion, when) we were to get commuter rail in the southern parts of the state. My foot's getting tired of kicking cans down roads.

The cans are lighter and easier to kick. Fortunately, NH would not have to share in the expected $700M operating deficit for FY July 2025-June 2026.

I think the problem here is whether the users of the service want better frequency (the bus will always operate more often than commuter rail would) or better capacity (commuter trains will have better capacity than a bus).

Since the bus service *IS* subsidized, then the train and bus can probably coexist if they reallocate some of the bus subsidy to the commuter rail. And, if that subsidiy is federally funded, they can probably ask for more money for the rail service, so that they don't have to dig deep for the money on the state level.

Another one of the problems comes down to perception of modes of transportation. There’s this concept that busses are for people of lower socioeconomic statuses than other modes of transportation. Whether or not this is true (hint: for the most part it’s not), the notion is still there, and I think it weighs on peoples’ minds more than whether or not the bus or the train has more capacity.

I think the future i the next few years for this proposal depends on who wins the NH Governor election, I remember Craig said she would want to bring Commuter Rail to NH should she win the election
https://www.wmur.com/article/craig-comm ... r/44954512

Goddraug wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 6:28 pm There’s this concept that busses are for people of lower socioeconomic statuses than other modes of transportation. Whether or not this is true (hint: for the most part it’s not)...

It's more true of local city buses than commuter coaches.

Funny thing with the money argument. People from least populated areas complain their money going to something they will never use in the more heavily populated area. They never complain when they use money from the more populated area to do a project in a least populated area. By percentage money from more populated areas go to least populated areas aka more people mean more money.

It's not that buses are for people of lower socioeconomic status; it's that buses are uncomfortable and unpleasant. You can't get work done on a bus, and I know at least one person who is prone to motion sickness on buses. The train is vastly preferable.

I dunno....I commuted to Boston for 3 years on a bus out of Salem....true I did avoid sitting with larger men but other than that I found the seats comfortable enough to doze most days. The Wifi on the bus improved markedly over those three years and I had no issues when I had to work from my seat. What was so unpleasant about your bus rides?

Long distance coaches are pretty comfortable IMO. Have this year ridden on a plastic-seated RTA bus, local service low-floor accessible, pretty uncomfortable if the seat is sideways, NY CDTA NX coach (a brand new long distance style coach) with cloth 2+2 seats, very comfortable, a Greyhound bus, comfortable 2+2 leather or leatherette seats, seemed a little run down though, and a Peter Pan bus, similar to the Greyhound but no bathroom. I don't see much difference between an MBTA 2+3 coach and a long distance coach bus with 2+2 seating. And if you have standing room crush loads on the Commuter Rail it is much worse. Definately more vibration on a bus, I used to get nausea if I tried to read a newspaper on a bus but but not on Commuter Rail, but after a couple of years of commuting the body & eyes adjusted to the motion. Main advantage of Commuter Rail is the dedicated ROW - if the railroad is properly operated they are within a couple of minutes of schedule. There was a reason why B&M's trademark was Minuteman Service. Sometimes I think the T should set actual fares based on number of passengers and how long it takes, so that local bus that is always stuck in traffic should have a higher fare than the Express Bus or Commuter Rail.

Red Wing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:43 pm Funny thing with the money argument. People from least populated areas complain their money going to something they will never use in the more heavily populated area. They never complain when they use money from the more populated area to do a project in a least populated area. By percentage money from more populated areas go to least populated areas aka more people mean more money.

Not true. If you look at a NH tax bill you've got county, school (local), town and state education. A miniscule amount of my tax dollars leaves the local area.

charlesriverbranch wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 7:52 am It's not that buses are for people of lower socioeconomic status; it's that buses are uncomfortable and unpleasant. You can't get work done on a bus, and I know at least one person who is prone to motion sickness on buses. The train is vastly preferable.

Amen

And as for the subsidy - that was agreed to by the State of NH as a condition of approval of I-93 widening. Personally, I've always been amazed that CJ out of Portsmouth/Dover has long run a thriving bus service to Boston (and now NYC) without any subsidies, but the highly populated corridor of Manchester - Nashua could not.