The Commuter Rail should extend its Boston lines into New Hampshire
For the benefit of New Hampshire’s businesses, economy, and environment, the Commuter Rail should bring its services north
October 20, 2022
For New Hampshire residents, there are two main ways to travel to Boston; buses from Manchester, Concord, or Londonderry, or driving their own cars. Both options can be time-consuming, expensive, and impractical, especially for daily commutes. Since the 1980s, there have been increasing calls to revive a long-lost third option; commuter rail.
Historically, many New Hampshire towns maintained passenger rail services. Prior to World War I, there were over one-thousand miles of commuter rail crisscrossing the state. As the century progressed, many rail lines were shut down as the United States became more car dependent. Currently, New Hampshire has roughly four-hundred miles of rail that is in use, mainly for freight purposes.
The proposal that has garnered the most support from the public, as well as elected officials, is the so-called Capital Corridor project. This proposal is simple: it involves extending an MBTA line that currently terminates in Lowell to one of the following cities: Nashua, Manchester, or Concord. A state-sponsored study concluded the best options would be Nashua or Manchester. All three options would continue the bus services from various New Hampshire locations to Boston as currently practiced. A Lowell to Nashua rail would be the cheapest option, while a Lowell to Concord would be the most costly. Expanding the rail to Concord also increases the number of expected passengers.
Opponents argue the price tag that comes with the project, reaching two-hundred million dollars in some estimates, as more than enough reason to not pursue this undertaking. This price tag may look large at first glance, but the benefits of expanding commuter rail are not only worth the price, but they also outweigh the potential negatives.
The commuter rail solves what was once an unsolvable problem: traffic. New Hampshire’s highways become parking lots every weekend, holiday, and weekday afternoon. Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to be trapped in the endless sea of cars knows this issue all too well. Opponents of expanding commuter rail point to the different forms of transportation already used as a perfectly fine alternative. It is true that alternative transportation exists, but not to the scale required to alleviate the traffic. Reliable high-speed commuter rail is the solution to this age-old problem. With a steady alternative route, many commuters who choose to drive now would use this new option for a variety of reasons, ranging from ease of access to cost.
A commuter rail also has the potential to send large positive shockwaves throughout the economies of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. With this new transportation system increasing the flow of people between the two states, both states would see increases in many categories, namely population, jobs, and available housing. Estimates from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation place the amount of new housing and jobs between two thousand and three thousand.
The new commuter rail would also decrease noise and environmental pollution. With the many highways traversing the state, New Hampshire creates significant pollution from car exhausts. These cars also create noise pollution in otherwise quiet cities and towns. A commuter rail solves both of these problems by decreasing the number of cars on New Hampshire roads and highways in a way no other type of transportation system can.
New Hampshire deserves a solution to all these problems that have plagued it for too long. We deserve a proven solution that works. New Hampshire had commuter rail decades ago, but, now that demographics have changed, there is a great opportunity that should be seized to bring it back. A commuter rail benefits everyone and harms nobody. The increase in tax revenue, increase in housing units, and increase in the number of available jobs all make the case for a commuter rail. The only negative is the price tag, but it is a price we can afford. Cities, states, and the federal government all spend more than what bringing the commuter rail to the Granite State would cost numerous times over every year on trivial matters.
Studies have been commissioned and completed, and they have found that a commuter rail would be an invaluable good done to the economy and the people of New Hampshire. The high-speed commuter rail is a modern twenty-first century transportation method that deserves support.
Randy • Nov 13, 2022 at 3:55 pm
This opinion piece points out that Commuter Rail will lead to more jobs and higher tax revenue. But the jobs will be in Massachusetts, and Massachusetts will levy those income taxes while New Hampshire will have to provide the subsidy from the property taxes of those who are not using the Commuter Rail. Since MA is receiving the benefits, they should subsidize the Commuter Rail at no cost to NH taxpayers. OTOH, I have been on 495 at rush hour, trying to get onto a RT 3 south when RT 3 is above its capacity, so I know that there is a crying need for more transportation, and I don’t need a study to tell me that Commuter Rail from Nashua or Manchester would be instantly popular. The problem is that riders want service that they are unwilling to pay for, so they want someone else to pay for it. And that is just wrong and against what New Hampshire should stand for.
JP • Oct 26, 2022 at 6:14 pm
“For New Hampshire residents, there are two main ways to travel to Boston; buses from Manchester, Concord, or Londonderry, or driving their own cars”.
May want to revisit this. On the coastal area you can take C&J busses or Amtrak (Downeast). These services are heavily and is used by a huge swath or the NH population.
Raymond Martin • Oct 26, 2022 at 5:52 pm
We live in apartment up the hill from Spit Brook
Road, exit 1 of Route 3, and there is a substantial amount of noise from many vehicles, such as trucks and motorcycles.
Andrew Gianattasio • Oct 25, 2022 at 11:04 am
There seems to be a slight contradiction here. It is stated that there will be a positive environmental impact as a result of the rail line, but at the same time, the article states there will be an increase in population and industry. When I look at Massachusetts, I see a place that used to be beautiful and natural, and then all of that was paved over to accommodate ever-expanding suburbs and strip malls. NH is not immune to this trend, but it is happening on a smaller scale here.
My point is, the rail line would increase development, which in turn would drive further ecological destruction and an increase in traffic, since those new riders would still own cars and drive them in the area when going shorter distances. We may be better off to keep a degree of separation between NH and mass, lest the only differences between the two become license plate color and tax law.
Consider this: the current rail line ends in lowell. Is lowell a model city for low traffic and environmental health? To me, the answer is clear.
Ross Capon • Oct 24, 2022 at 5:55 am
New Hampshire already enjoys commuter rail on the Boston-Portland-Brunswick Downeaster line, including at Dover and Exeter. The line has been a boon to UNH. Give more New Hampshire folks trains and they will ride!
Vincent Bono • Oct 22, 2022 at 9:23 am
The MBTA is not the right operator for this. They struggle to pay for the outlying reaches of the current system and while they do have the contractual right to run up to Concord in practice the deal they had with PanAm which now conveyed to CSX is awful, with lots of operating payments and responsibilities for maintenance and improvement and subsequent tax hikes on the right of way that the owner may incure due to those improvements. In addition the trip schedule imposed by advocacy groups is likely to be hellacious. The best hope would be Amtrak running intercity service on a commute window heavy schedule. Whole the states may have to subsidize some operations Amtrak would get much closer to revenue neutral from farebox sales than the T. Amtraks reported overhead is about 38% vs the MBTAs 52% on use of funds. Amtrak has a much larger fleet and better ame itiea than the T. Finally, the T charges Rhode Island about 10M a year plus farebox revenue plus a healthy chunk on the FYA funding collected all for about 17 miles of operation. If anyone expects anything less for 2.5x that mileage into NH they may need to rethink. I could go on. wlWhile I’ve always been a staunch advocate of a return of passenger rail to this corridor, if it’s a government run solution Amtrak is really the only way to go. The delegation needs to get to work on them after the findings from the cost and planning phase NHDOT is almost done with.
Mack • Oct 25, 2022 at 11:38 am
The Commuter Rail is operated by Keolis, not MBTA.
Will P. • Oct 21, 2022 at 12:50 pm
To all the people that (don’t) support commuter rail in NH…
Wake up NH!
Its small minded thinking if you don’t want rail.
Yes it will cost upfront, Yes it will have problems, Yes it will have concerns of the voters of NH. It will also have (all) the same problems just like any and (all) other businesses of NH!
I ask all the voters of NH to look at it this way…
The average child living in NH going throw our school systems then going off to college most times in a different state doesn’t return to NH to Work, Live, Spend there hard earned dollars and play in NH. One average. NH will not exist if we don’t invest in opportunity’s for the next generation of young workers of tomorrow. Just think of the industry alone you could offer our youth of tomorrow just by reintroducing commuter rail to NH. Not to mention how the NH College System, Bio Medical, Access to Hospitals, multitudes of NH Businesses that would benefit from it.
NH will continue to be one of the lowest in our nation on everything transpiration if we don’t do something. Creating for tomorrow is where we, NH needs to be together as one state. Yes we will have political views on rail but its one thing that our state needs moving the state into modern times like every other state in our nation.
Wake up NH voters and lets get to work!
Fred • Oct 21, 2022 at 6:51 am
It is how most of the world commutes. We’re just addicted to cars.
Henry Porter • Oct 21, 2022 at 6:50 am
This op-ed is based on wishful thinking and a poor understanding of reality and misstatements of facts.
scott • Oct 20, 2022 at 10:59 pm
If objections were really about transportation subsidies, opponents would be informed about the much much higher levels of Highway subsidies.
Frankly, lack of state support for rail (and education) is a big driver in the sun-30 group leaving the state and never coming back. Rail opponents know this, and celebrate it’s effect on NH demographics and the voting polls.
Opponents think they are “preserving” NH when in fact they’re destroying it because if we can’t increase density along the Corridor then home builders will keep turning farms into subdivisions until nothing is left.
Mohammed M. • Oct 20, 2022 at 8:10 pm
There hasn’t been passenger rail service between Southern NH and Boston for too long, those who oppose the Capitol Corridor project clearly have no idea what they are on about, its no coincidence that most modern urban and transportation planners are pro-rail, while most of the opposition are just backwoods NIMBYs.
Donald • Oct 20, 2022 at 5:09 pm
Our lawmakers in the north will never support it because it requires subsidies. Secondly, the MBTA is the only proposed solution and it has problems of its own.