Commuter Rail in New Hampshire MBTA Commuter Rail
#2
Posted 29 January 2004 - 07:44 PM
#3 Guest_donaltopablo_*
Posted 29 January 2004 - 08:14 PM
#4
Posted 29 January 2004 - 08:16 PM
#5
Posted 29 January 2004 - 08:36 PM
#6
Posted 30 January 2004 - 05:20 AM
Quote
Well New Hampshire's misguided brand of Republican/Libertarianism is only possible when you are next door to a wealthy "communist" state like Massachusetts.
I drove up rt.3 yesterday and at about 129 in Billerica there was traffic backed up to Westford or Tyngsboro because of a fender bender. Imagine being stuck in standstill traffic with at least an hour more to drive.
Also the site in the area of Spit Brook and Daniel Webster is currently an old chemical plant at the end of an underused dead end street. The intersection is very busy and the surrounding area has some of the highest concentrations of apartment buildings in the city. The other sites off E. Hollis street are also near well established, dense areas with the land to build so-called "Smart Growth" projects.
#7
Posted 31 January 2004 - 07:47 PM
http://www.manchesternh.gov/CityGov/PLN/Pr...A5644642CB4.pdf
#8
Posted 01 February 2004 - 02:22 PM
#9
Posted 19 April 2004 - 09:40 PM
David Darman, 2004-04-19
New Hampshire's Supreme Court ruled today that the state constitution won't allow gasoline tax money to be used on passenger rail projects.
New Hampshire Public Radio's David Darman has more.
The ruling is a victory for NH's Motor Transport Association, which brought the suit after the state used gas tax money on the Nashua Commuter Rail project.
The association based its claim on a constitutional amendment that dates back to 1938.
That amendment states that gas taxes will be spent on highways and nothing else.
Bob Scully is president of the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association. He says the state practice of using highway funds for rail had to be stopped. There's precedents that were being established there. we thought they were illegal. the courts agreed with us. we're not opposed to rail. If the rail interests want to build them, then we just suggest they find another way to pay for them.
The ruling sets back the state Transportation Department's plan to bring commuter rail service to Nashua. With highway fund money unavailable, state lawmakers now have to look for other funding sources for rail.
Transportation commissioner Carol Murray says she's aware the state's budget is too tight now to pay for rail costs. Looking to the general fund in the state coffers to fund the nashua project or any rail project, i don't see as a really viable possibility. but clearly, with this decision out in the state, clearly ...discussions with the legislature will occur.
DOT had hoped the Nashua project would be part of an intermodal transportation network. The network would consist of highways, intercity buses, and trains.
Tom Irwin of the New Hampshire chapter of the Conservation law foundation says this transportation mix is necessary as the state's population grows. If we simply continue investing in highway expansion, congestion always returns. so, its not a sustainable solution. we do need some form, some source of funding to assist in that to find more sustainable approaches.
New Hampshire's transportation mix may one day look the way officials envision it. In the meantime, the latest Supreme Court decision keeps highway money where its been for generations.
Its paying for highways.
From New Hampshire Public Radio
#10
Posted 09 July 2004 - 07:46 PM
#11
Posted 10 July 2004 - 03:51 PM
See this site: http://www.nashuarpc.org/commuterrail/
Portsmouth is also in the early stages of a feasibility study to bring rail there, it is not clear if they would try to get the T up there, or Amtrak, or some new service provider. The Portsmouth service would be an extension northward of the T's Newburyport line. Currently Amtrak's Downeaster service to Maine passes just to the west of Portsmouth with a station in Dover.
Nashua service is an extension of the T's Lowell commuter line. Eventual service to Manchester would be a further extension of this Nashua line. There was service in this corridor as far north as Concord until 1967. And there was a federal demonstration project in this corridor between 1980 and 1981. The service had high ridership considering it were only 2 round trips per day. The population of southern New Hampshire has increased considerably since the 1980-81 project.
There is also a proposal for a high speed rail line that would run between Boston and Montreal via Lowell, MA; Nashua, NH; Manchester, NH; Concord, NH; White River Junction, VT; Montpelier, VT; and Burlington, VT. New Hampshire is currently holding up the project by not making funds available for their portion of the feasibility study.
See this site: http://www.bostonmontrealhsr.org/
#12
Posted 10 July 2004 - 04:03 PM
#13
Posted 10 July 2004 - 04:35 PM
heckles, on Jul 10 2004, 06:03 PM, said:
New Hampshire is a great place actually. The key great thing about it is the taxes, that's what is drawing so many Massholes up there. Although the low taxes can get in the way of progress. We'll probably see a wholesale change in the state's tax system before long. The education funding is way out of whack, and as you can see, transit funding is non-existant. The state eschews a lot of federal money, much of it's roadway infrastructure is supported by gas taxes and tolls.
It's government structure is a little odd too. It has a part time legislature, and a 2 year term for the governor. Basically the governor is always in campaign mode making tough policy decsions hard to make.
The natural beauty of the state is undeniable, and it has some stunning cities and towns. The influx of Massholes is creating a sprawl problem in the southern part of the state however. They really need to get their act together soon if they are to protect the landscape in southern NH.
#14
Posted 11 July 2004 - 05:55 AM
#15
Posted 11 July 2004 - 12:38 PM
#16
Posted 11 July 2004 - 09:15 PM
#17
Posted 12 July 2004 - 07:16 AM
tocoto, on Jul 11 2004, 11:15 PM, said:
It'll be interesting to see if the Free Staters have any influence on that.
#19
Posted 26 December 2004 - 11:41 AM
By PETER WARD, MediaNews | December 22, 2004
NASHUA Nashua officials took a giant step closer to a railroad station for the proposed $70 million Lowell-to-Nashua rail line extension last week when the Board of Aldermen voted 14-1 to endorse a mechanism to pay for the commuter station within its boundary.
By allowing a special incremental tax district, including the station and retail in a concentrated area, the special district could raise revenue and allow the city to float a bond for $14 million the amount New Hampshire needs to trigger release of $25 million to $56 million in federal funds earmarked for the project.
"They cleared a logjam by identifying a way to pay the matching funds, so now we can go to Department of Transportation and say, 'OK, the city will pay the matching,'" said Stephen Williams, executive director of the Nashua Regional Planning Commission.
Though the location hasn't been selected, city officials have focused on a site near Spit Brook Road.
Nashua's action marks a reversal.
In April, the New Hampshire Supreme Court dealt the project a blow, saying the state was barred from using a proposed increase in the gasoline tax to pay for the project. In 2002, the state's Executive Council voted against paying for an environmental study. Williams said some changes in personnel on the council could bode well for the project.
The line's extension would require adding a second track along part of the Merrimack River. It's seen as a way to alleviate traffic on local highways and reduce parking congestion at Lowell's Gallagher Terminal.
From The 1590 Broadcaster
#20
Posted 29 December 2004 - 10:11 AM

Help












