Submitted by PurpleSubtlePlan t3_10xqusl in newhampshire
Comments
Dramatic_Mechanic815 t1_j7urk7v wrote
That’s the real issue here. Meanwhile, the geezers are confused why their children are moving away when they can’t afford to buy a house here and professional careers are few and far between.
nowhereman1223 t1_j7v3t7c wrote
Why wont you stay to support us and keep the grandkids nearby?
Sorry pops, unless you are going to sell me your house for 1/2 the market value and move in to a home with the money that will run out in 2 years.... we can't afford it.
Dramatic_Mechanic815 t1_j7x13k4 wrote
Sadly, that’s literally a conversation my wife and I just had. It went as well as you expect. This place is so backwards. Worst case of NIMBYism in the country.
UnfairAd7220 t1_j7y11uh wrote
Buses are cheaper, by far, than the operating and capital cost of bringing back rail.
That is no conspiracy.
Reubachi t1_j7ztq1g wrote
How often does a governing body use this logic? Not often.
Short term you’re right, but rail is orders of magnitude cheaper to maintain once established than even a brand new maintenance free bus fleet.
UnfairAd7220 t1_j82w5xb wrote
Not a chance. The capital cost on that last study was $200M. Fares wouldn't cover the operating expense and the state would be on the hook for $6M in outright subsidy. That doesn't include debt service.
On that basis, in terms of 'short' or 'long' term, 'cheap' doesn't get anywhere near the conversation.
FaustusC t1_j7v20r6 wrote
We don't have enough fucking affordable housing as it is, allowing people to flee here for (what used to be) lower cost of living isn't going to help.
If we can't house the people in the state now, is an infrastructure project that doesn't really benefit us by providing an employment base and taxes to Assachusetts really seem like a fuckin' priority?
nowhereman1223 t1_j7v4rk3 wrote
Do you understand that having affordable transportation to places like Boston would bring the people we want and need that would demand affordable housing in metro areas?
The employment base and taxes aren't here now. What do you propose to bring them here? You know what would do it? Affordable transportation to metro areas.
Set up the commuter rail, let people work in Boston, live in Manchester. Those folks take over all the expensive apartments and condos being built. Those folks go out to eat, shop, entertain, utilize services etc IN NH. Those services need people to work at them. Those people need places to live. Affordable housing is then built for those people. Right now there isn't enough demand OVERALL for the lower priced housing. Sure everyone complains that housing is too expensive. What do they do? They leave. Because not only is there not enough housing, there aren't enough decent jobs available either.
-cochise t1_j7vh42s wrote
Wait, I’m opposed to this bill, but is your proposition that if we could roll the right kind of people here on a train, we’d get more housing out of it?
nowhereman1223 t1_j7vyrju wrote
My proposition is that these things are substantially more complex and wont be solved overnight.
My theory is that bringing more people in to fill the current housing (with prices that will not be reduced without govt intervention no matter how much we wish for it) those people will need more services that will pay more and may result in a profitable need for additional housing on the lower end.
It's not a guarantee. I can promise that blocking progress and shutting down connections and mass transit that the rest of the world uses is the opposite of a solution.
-cochise t1_j7y0sel wrote
But the housing is filled already. Like nearly all of it. Statewide vacancy is like sub 1%. This whole line of reasoning is nonsensical.
FaustusC t1_j7v7sey wrote
lmfao WHO WANTS AND NEEDS THEM? People who don't like or care about the way of life here and want to make New Hampshire like whatever congested shithole they're fleeing?
Manchester is it's own Metro area, dipshit. Connecting it to a larger one with more competition isn't going to improve conditions here, it's going to improve them for whoever we take the slack from.
Congratulations, you don't get it. That's what's already happening and yet, we're still not building affordable housing. Rents up the Coast of New Hampshire have sky rocketed the past two years to Boston rates. Manchester is getting there unless you want to live with either cockroaches, drugs or robbery. NO ONE IS BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TAKING AWAY THE HOUSING HERE FOR NEW PEOPLE WON'T MAGIC NEW HOUSING INTO EXISTENCE.
nowhereman1223 t1_j7vu29t wrote
What is your proposal to fix the problem?
The housing market is profit driven, the companies have found little to no profit in low income and affordable housing. So they stopped providing it and raised rents etc.
Do you propose the Govt mandate, regulate, and subsidize housing to ensure people can get in to affordable housing?
If you don't want that, how should it be done?
Dramatic_Mechanic815 t1_j7x2tbu wrote
Wealth brings investment (such as new housing…), tax revenue, etc. If people could affordably commute to Boston for higher wages, it would bring prosperity to Manchester, too. Simple economics. Have you tried to find a high wage “white collar” job in NH? Good luck. The few “job creators” that have made the news here in NH have been warehouses and distribution centers. Not exactly high wage.
SheeEttin t1_j7v7z1n wrote
Maybe we should improve transit and housing.
FaustusC t1_j7vafg0 wrote
Maybe we should improve housing first ffs.
Making it so residents have basic shelter should be a much fucking higher priority than, idk, making sure Dipshit McGee doesn't have two dwive an hour for work :((((((
nowhereman1223 t1_j7vt78r wrote
Housing will get improved when there is profit to it. Right now there isn't.
Unless you want the government to pay for, regulate and subsidize low income housing?
Parzival_1775 t1_j7wiwqy wrote
That's exactly what needs to happen. The profit motive is inherently unsuited to providing affordable housing, because it is always more profitable to build mcmansions and luxury apartments. The actual incremental cost in building such homes is negligible, resulting in a much higher profit margin.
Dramatic_Mechanic815 t1_j7x3td3 wrote
You’re correct in some respects. This is usually when the government should step in to help make building affordable housing attractive and profitable, usually through tax breaks or subsidies. Unfortunately, Manchester isn’t exactly swimming in cash and neither is the state. And good luck proposing subsidies for affordable home housing with the diehard Live Free or Die-ers here. I’ve never seen a state try so hard to stay poor and starve its government.
Reubachi t1_j7zyjwv wrote
Yes. Population growth drives economic stimulus and new residential housing.
There is currently a housing crisis for the reverse of this. Why build new residential if there’s no way to get to work? (Boston or manch via rail)
maxhinator123 t1_j7u7m91 wrote
I'm furious, they know we are getting closer and closer to rail finally returning to this state. Connecting nashua-manch-concord to the Boston metropolitan area would do wonders for our economy and the environment. It only hurts big oil and the auto industry, conveniently the guys lobbying against it and donating to the legislators.
Please please please reach out. We cannot afford to go backwards, this project will fix traffic and help our fuel and heat oil prices stay low by dramatically reducing oil use from automobiles. Also uh the environment lol
KrissaKray t1_j7u9mma wrote
When will it pay for itself?
megagem t1_j7udh90 wrote
If we're getting rid of things that don't directly pay for themselves, driving is first on the chopping block by a very wide margin.
KrissaKray t1_j7udww8 wrote
Can you please elaborate?
megagem t1_j7uea8x wrote
Driving is the most heavily subsidized mode of transportation. Logically it needs to be the first to go.
KrissaKray t1_j7ufbs2 wrote
How is it subsidized, I mean?
megagem t1_j7ugo25 wrote
Drivers don't pay for it, so clearly someone else does. Not the negative externalities of the pollution they're responsible for, not the wear and tear on the roads and infrastructure (beyond a laughable token amount), not the cost of parking for free on public land, etc.
If we want to make driving profitable, we need to massively raise the gas tax for the pollution, implement an annual fee based on miles traveled and weight to cover all road and auto infrastructure costs (including those currently paid for by the Federal Government), use congestion pricing, deploy automated traffic enforcement cameras, and ensure that all vehicles parked on public property pay the prevailing market price for that footprint of land.
I always get a chuckle out of the lack of self-awareness when people talk about a rail option not paying for itself. Even if the ticket price is a loss, moving someone from a car to the train is a net gain because driving is a much larger loss.
KrissaKray t1_j7uj9w0 wrote
Literally everyone who use the roads pay for them. According to multiple sources, the roads are paid for with: Gas tax (state AND Fed), tolls, registration fees etc. If you don't drive, you don't ultimately pay for those things.
The rail line? This will NOT be paid for with JUST rail line users' funds.
SgtToastie t1_j7ur3gp wrote
Your source literally says that the roads aren't self funded and rely on at least $144 million in federal subsidies. That's not "paying for itself".
FY2023 report states say Transportation costs are at $680,627,309. Our dedicated intake from highways tolls, car reg, and other miscellaneous funds is $432,055,480. After that federal highway funding that'd leave around $104 million coming out the general tax funds each year. How did you reach the conclusion that it's self funded from that?
KrissaKray t1_j7urfoq wrote
Didddddd you know gas taxes aren’t just state?
SgtToastie t1_j7usfyr wrote
If you want to try analyzing the Federal Highway Trust Fund and show the match between the inlays to NH and the outlays over the various fuel taxes be my guest, you still haven't addressed the nearly $100 million deficit. Kinda weird you ignore that part completely.
AdditionalAioli6394 t1_j7usxuo wrote
When was the last time the federal gas tax was raised? It's long past due.
deadliftothersup t1_j7wpvs4 wrote
Over 25 years ago and it's a hard coded number, not based on inflation, so every year national gas tax has contributed less to maintaining roads. Also local roads are far more heavily funded via property taxes. Gas taxes, federal and state don't come close to paying for themselves.
megagem t1_j7utagt wrote
In addition to the other response by SgtToastie, this STILL doesn't take into consideration the costs of pollution, congestion, or condemning valuable land to uneconomic parking.
Every single person that complains about the cost of the train is a driver that loses their minds at the idea of actually paying for the full cost of their car.
sirspidermonkey t1_j7v4esj wrote
Least we not forget cars are one of the most deadly forms of transportation per mile traveled. In terms of externalities that's huge.
deadliftothersup t1_j7wpzgg wrote
While simultaneously bitching about traffic they're stuck in no less
Berneraccountbuddy t1_j7x1wbx wrote
You're arguing with idiots.
maxhinator123 t1_j7ud9oh wrote
A common misconception in America is that services as such should generate "profit". While rail service like this is likely to never generate raw profit, it is astronomically lower to maintain than roadways as rail can go many years without maintenance and there are near zero treatment needs such as plowing and pothole repair.
The real gain or "profit" are two categories, local economy and gains with people who do still commute.
For the local community it's as easy to think hey, someone can live in Manchester and commute near Boston, this person lives here this generates revenue for local business with rent food etc.. it's proven time and time again rail infrastructure causes drastic economic growth near where it is implemented. Especially given that those who use it aren't tied to automobiles which frees up a lot of income for other expenses of theirs. These are naturally reinvested into the local economy.
For the other part, automobile traffic, trains can transport an impressive number of people quickly, not only will this remove those cars from the roads removing traffic we all hate, but it removes the cost of those roadways (granted the shrink or at least stop growing) which are dozens of times more expensive to maintain than a railway (for some reason we are all okay spilling our taxes on "one more lane" but not actually fixing the problem.
There are endless gains to rail as we see how most other developed countries have most of their population commuting by it.
Americans just need to stop thinking of it as a profit project but a tax saving project and economic growth opportunity.
KrissaKray t1_j7udc21 wrote
Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize failing business models.
maxhinator123 t1_j7ufndb wrote
- shoots self in foot not understanding where taxes go. Rail would lower your taxes
Berneraccountbuddy t1_j7x2763 wrote
Man stop lying to people.
KrissaKray t1_j7ujolw wrote
Lol! No it wouldn’t.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7uyan5 wrote
You can easily lower your taxes. Stop working and stop buying stuff. Patriots and true Americans love to pay taxes because it means they are successful. I wish I had so much income that my tax bill paid for an entire school. And all those kid made the community bright and lively.
vexingsilence t1_j7v45p1 wrote
>Patriots and true Americans love to pay taxes
Well there's some 100% grade A bullshit.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7v6vcy wrote
If you have no use for any services that taxes fund, then you really have no need to participate in society at all. On the other hand, if you are using the services but not paying for them, that would be a sense of unfounded entitlement.
Paying taxes gives me security and services. And liked-mind folks who like those things choose to enact and pay for them. The system we use for that is called a government, which we made, specifically for awesome stuff. So we also made up money to facilitate all this. You get to use money. You don't "make" it because it is symbolic.
vexingsilence t1_j7v8081 wrote
No sane person "loves" paying taxes. It goes to a finding a corrupt system that gets more corrupt the further you get from where you live. By the time it reaches DC, there's very little chance that any of the money you paid goes to anything that benefits you or your community.
MA is much more liberal than NH, and they have the option to pay a higher tax rate if they want to. Hardly anyone ever does. That's how much they love paying taxes.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7v9k3i wrote
I gave you a good reason to pay taxes. You're just blindly giving money to government without participating in the process. If no one worked at all no one would pay taxes and there would be no government at all. You can already go live like that if you want to. Go
vexingsilence t1_j7vaq77 wrote
>You're just blindly giving money to government without participating in the process.
Make assumptions much?
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vcfyh wrote
I was one the fence about that sentence because I assumed you'd make a stink about how voters shape policy just by voting. Blah blah blah. Anyways, you just want to pick apart what I am sayibg without making a point. I DO love to pay taxes so you are the one with inaccurate assumptions
vexingsilence t1_j7vhz2d wrote
You made a sweeping statement that patriots and "true Americans" love paying taxes. That's like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You might love it, plenty of people don't. There are whole businesses devoted to helping people pay the least amount of taxes possible. Does that make them less patriotic or less of an American? That's a slippery slope. If you're not making six figures, you're practically a terrorist?
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vj8rw wrote
Tons of people pay no taxes, Its simple. The baffling thing is that people who don't want to pay taxes, yet want money. Those people are selfish and short-sighted. So those are the people thinking wrong, like you are.
vexingsilence t1_j7vko81 wrote
No. Not every project is worthy of funding. What kind of argument is that? If someone doesn't see a need for commuter rail, that doesn't make them any less of a "patriot" than someone that does see a need. That's such a disgusting way of debating a topic. Some people want commuter rail, they need to make a compelling argument to convince enough of the voters and their representatives to push the project through. That hasn't happened so far. Expensive projects like this should never get an automatic green light.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vp1fw wrote
But you're in favor of an automatic red light on everything, not much different.
vexingsilence t1_j7vq7c2 wrote
I've watched it play out and added my $0.02 in some of the public feedback over the decades that this has been under discussion. That's pretty far from an automatic red light.
That's why there's a proposal to kill the thing. It's dragged on long enough. We need to either build it, or end it. We're wasting time and money letting this proposal drag on forever.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7vrbc3 wrote
Talk is cheap, the only reason to force people to stop is if you think they'll reach a conclusion that you decided you won't like.
Edit: It is actually an insidious tactic to shut down debate just because you've arbitrarily decided "its gone on too long".
vexingsilence t1_j7vvyte wrote
It's not a tactic to kill debate, it's a tactic to stop the state and the cities of Nashua and Manchester from dumping money into something that has failed to get off the ground in the ~50+ years that it's been under discussion. How much longer would you like to drag this out for? There's no use in keeping a project in the discussion phase for that long. It's either viable or it's not.
Would you be happier if this bill proposed shelving the project for a decade and then calling for it to be returned to the table for discussion then to see if conditions have changed enough to warrant further discussion?
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7w42jk wrote
I am in favor of making the best decisions. There is no limit to the amount of discussion to reach that conclusion. But we can't even debate the rail thing because we waste so much time debating if we should debate it. And THIS conversation is like debating if we should debate about debating. A person who is just looking to stifle progress can keep going like this forever. It is another insidious strategy to keep the focus away from the actual question at hand.
vexingsilence t1_j7w6yak wrote
The government shouldn't discuss topics endlessly. There are other topics that are not getting the attention they deserve by doing so. If a consensus can't be reached, it should be shelved for a while and everyone should move on. Revisit it at a later date after the interested parties have had time to come up with a more compelling pitch. I don't see an issue with that. A lot of people are in favor, a lot of against. There's no consensus.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7wagdq wrote
You obviously don't want the rail and are doing mental gymnastics to justify shutting down debate BEFORE there is a decision. Let the debate die of its own merit or it will never be settled.
vexingsilence t1_j7wfa5q wrote
There's been 50+ years of debate. How much more do you want?
Like I said, there's no consensus. There's been countless studies and pitches over the years. None of them were compelling enough to rally enough support to get it approved.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7zij3p wrote
Endless debate is actually fine as long as both sides are debating in good faith. There's no reason to stifle it unless you have an ulterior motive (like keeping status quo because it benefits you personally.)
vexingsilence t1_j7zqrmb wrote
It costs time and money to keep it going. If you can't make your case, it gets set aside. Much like this discussion here is about to.
ZacPetkanas t1_j7um1g6 wrote
> Rail would lower your taxes
How so? The roads aren't going to be decommissioned so taxes would be spent on roads and rail. Where does the savings come from?
SkiingAway t1_j7ufoze wrote
Roads get massive subsidies. How do you think all of the road work is paid for? The gas tax(es) don't come anywhere close to paying for it.
KrissaKray t1_j7ug0nj wrote
Are you forgetting the massive registration fees each year? Tolls? Property taxes?
edit: I'm all for preventing people who dont pay those things from using the roads lmao
SkiingAway t1_j7uh4f5 wrote
> Are you forgetting the massive registration fees each year? Tolls?
No. Still doesn't cover the cost. Roughly half of road spending in the country comes from general funds, not user fees (gas tax, registration, license, other costs you only pay for driving).
> Property taxes?
Are not a tax paid by drivers specifically - the use of that money to subsidize rail is no different from using it to subsidize roads.
Either they're both "failing business models", or looking at basic transportation infrastructure through the lens of profit/loss is a dumb idea....in both cases.
KrissaKray t1_j7ui1h0 wrote
Where do the funds come from? I’m asking because you seem like the expert in this.
SkiingAway t1_j7upwn9 wrote
NH actually does better than the average state, to be clear - it's around #13 - about 60% of road costs were covered by those kinds of user fees in FY 2016 Source.
> Where do the funds come from? I’m asking because you seem like the expert in this.
Other "general" tax revenues.
Especially at the federal level. The infrastructure bill that's sending billions in $ to NH, is not coming from the gas tax.
The normal federal share of road infrastructure projects is increasingly not coming from gas taxes. The federal highway trust fund that pays for those is theoretically funded by the gas tax....but the tax hasn't been increased since 1993, things clearly cost more today than 30 years ago, and so Congress transfers billions per year of general revenue (income taxes and the like) to plug the gap.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j7uyq0t wrote
Soild facts and logic are often completely ignored by the person you are trying to inform. They cannot change their view. Some sort of primitive brain malfunction.
sirspidermonkey t1_j7v4k0a wrote
And yet he's still using the same talking point here.
megagem t1_j7ue125 wrote
There is no mode of transportation that this applies more to than the personal automobile. The rail link will be profitable once we cut the dead weight by banning cars.
vexingsilence t1_j7v4nf5 wrote
> The rail link will be profitable once we cut the dead weight by banning cars.
Not happening in our lifetimes. The rail service serves a very narrow corridor. It's not going to replace private vehicle use in any significant way. You can add in bus lines to service the stations, but that's making a train trip that's already too long even longer. And it's still a fairly narrow service corridor.
Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7uln2w wrote
I’m sure you support a VMT tax then?
KrissaKray t1_j7upvkh wrote
Going to be real I don’t support any taxes… but the others are already there and I understand that some taxation may be required. I don’t in ANY WAY support “new” taxes without removing taxation from elsewhere though.
Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7uqqy5 wrote
So you’re a child. Got it
[deleted] t1_j7v2mfs wrote
[deleted]
KrissaKray t1_j7uqvv2 wrote
Thanks for attacking me over thinking taxes are stupid.
Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7uwiv6 wrote
No one likes paying taxes, but we live in a society. A VMT almost feels un-American, doesn’t it? It exposes use fees in general for what they really are: a crock of shit. If we subsidize roads, we should subsidize railroads too.
I hear the taxes are non-existent in Somalia if you ever decide you don’t like the benefits of society.
KrissaKray t1_j7ux2sz wrote
I literally said I understand that some taxation is required. New taxes encourage more unchecked spending. They’ll never go down. They just grab more and more.
Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7uyxlu wrote
Trump cut taxes. Dubya Bush cut taxes. Sununu just eliminated the tax on unearned income in NH. Massachusetts cut taxes over the last 30 years, and fell to the mid-20s in the ranking of states by tax burden. Taxes get cut all the time. What are you talking about?
[deleted] t1_j7x2map wrote
[deleted]
603ify t1_j7v2neo wrote
Wow, so someone asks you to not take their money by force, for a service they likely won’t use, and you’re resorting to attacking them? Jeez that’s a sick attitude.
Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7v4008 wrote
How’s your crypto beanie baby portfolio holding up without the backing of the evil State’s monopoly on violence? Your money only has value because the government accepts it as payment for taxes.
SheeEttin t1_j7v8l4v wrote
One study found a 4-to-1 return over 10 years: https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/article/21072535/apta-study-public-transit-investment-stimulates-a-4to1-return
So, averaging it out, in 2.5 years.
The source might be biased because it's a public transit advocacy org, but I haven't found any other studies.
Action-Calm t1_j7ua0os wrote
Never. It will be a money pit like the T in Boston
Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7ulxx3 wrote
If you libertarian nuts somehow took over MA and abolished the T, their entire economy would collapse. Boston cannot function without it. It’s not built for cars. Traffic is already hopelessly gridlocked. Cars never should have been allowed there in the first place.
The T is to government as IT is to business. Yeah, it’s a “cost center” and makes no money, but everything else depends on it. Only dumbass beancounters don’t get that.
lantonas t1_j7v4pto wrote
And New Hampshire won't collapse without commuter rail
Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j7v59sq wrote
No, but Manchester will remain the biggest shithole within 75 miles of Boston. All the other shitholes near Boston have gotten a lot better over the last 10 years. Manchester has gotten a lot worse. It’s the only one without commuter rail. That’s not a coincidence.
When they finish east-west rail, it’ll only be a matter of time before Manchester falls behind Springfield and Hartford, too. You’re cutting off your own dick to spite your masshole.
Action-Calm t1_j7uu6z5 wrote
Well keep it in Boston. That way you can be a good little lemming.
K_Gal14 t1_j7udv9q wrote
The t is different than commuter rail in Boston. Kelois is a private company that runs that rail. My understanding is it is they do make money, but definitely fact check me there.
Mbta is a different gov run disaster
KrissaKray t1_j7ua389 wrote
At this point, I’m not even sure the T is properly solvent.
lakeorjanzo t1_j7tuko2 wrote
Such an absurd proposal to ban state funding
BlackJesus420 t1_j7u34w4 wrote
The State House continues to be a big, gold-domed clown car.
cdiddy2 t1_j7uu3ae wrote
Brightline in Florida completed rail there with all private funding. No reason it can't happen here. They got up and running in 4 years. Compared to Californias state funded rail its quite different.
The scale of the projects isn't the same but the outcomes sort of speak for themselves:
-
in florida you have the brightline rail. privately funded started construction 2014 and opened in 2018
-
in california you have the states CHSR plan, construction started 2015 after 6 years of reviews, and isn't slated to complete until 2029 at the earliest.
Liberatedhusky t1_j7uvy4v wrote
That's great that Florida managed that. The government exists for the sole purpose of improving our lives as citizens and funding public goods like public transit and critical infrastructure. I think the option to fund state projects is always better than not having the option to fund state projects.
[deleted] t1_j7u55ap wrote
[deleted]
vexingsilence t1_j7uvlbr wrote
How many more studies you want to pay for for a service that won't actually get built?
batmansmotorcycle t1_j7uyx13 wrote
Sununu has come out in support of Commuter Rail and it’s already funded if we don’t jerk around.
Wanna come again with that straw man nonsense?
vexingsilence t1_j7v0khb wrote
We've been here many times before. Nothing gets built. To me, the whole thing is a scam so that the politicians can hire consultants that are probably connected in some way to their supporters to come up with but another study. The thing has been studied to death and still they do more studies.
That's one of the biggest reasons I support the bill to kill this thing. The state and the two cities are incapable of pulling off a project like this.
Plus there's a housing crunch. Commuter rail might be used to lure people into the area, but there's no place to put them. The only people likely to use it are people that already have a way of getting to work or wherever. Seems rather pointless.
batmansmotorcycle t1_j7v2bgj wrote
There has been exactly like two studies on this thing, and they just kill the last one before it was even complete.
Dont be short sighted and I’m not going to get into the indirect benefits of this rail project because if you can’t see them by now it’s on you.
Go look at the current housing boom in the granite street area of Manchester which is smack dab in the middle of where one of the stops will be. It’s no accident.
These things never get off the ground because of obstructionism in concord.
This last study was a design build study, it was to be the last one before they made the final decision to build and would have had different alternatives.
There are literally so many indirect benefits to rail.
vexingsilence t1_j7v518e wrote
>There has been exactly like two studies on this thing, and they just kill the last one before it was even complete.
There have been continuous studies all the way back to the trial run in the 80's.
batmansmotorcycle t1_j7vkn29 wrote
Okay fine if you wanna go back 45 years
vexingsilence t1_j7vm6pr wrote
It goes back further than that, the trial run in the 80s didn't materialize from nothing. That's how long this project has been under discussion, and how long the taxpayers have been paying for studies and for debates and so on. I'd love to see the actual dollar amount that's already been spent without any actual construction being done, or without any concrete plans materializing. That's why this bill is happening, people want to put a cork in this thing before we spend another half century paying for more studies.
vexingsilence t1_j7v3alf wrote
Yes, all the studies are the last ones to be made. That's before the next additional study is launched. You're naïve if you can't see that. Obstructionism is part of our system. You admit things never get off the ground, so it sounds like you agree with me.
Saying there are "indirect benefits" isn't a convincing argument. It will be a money pit, and will only be used by a small number of people that already have a way of commuting.
You're using stops in Manchester as a plural, as in multiple stops? That's even worse. Each additional stop makes it that much longer to get from NH to Boston. Even just the earlier proposals of one station in Manchester, one in Nashua, one stop in Lowell, and then Boston was enough to make a rather long total commute. That further reduces the usability of the service.
batmansmotorcycle t1_j7vl25l wrote
You realize people can use it come into the state right?
It will be a money pit but it will never come close to the pit that I93 was or the FEET expansion will be…
All public transportation are money put by design but they pay for themselves in economic impact.
vexingsilence t1_j7vnnq9 wrote
>You realize people can use it come into the state right?
Ever use the Lowell line? The trains fill up in the morning heading into Boston. They fill up in the evening heading back from Boston. The trains tend to be sparsely populated outside of that. There's not much reason to think that NH would see anything different.
You might get some traffic to MHT depending on how difficult it is to get from the train to the airport. But what else is going to draw people in?
batmansmotorcycle t1_j7vskf7 wrote
Well let’s go up the line.
First stop is the pheasant lane mall. Tax Free Shopping Second stop is South Nashua. Further tax free shopping. Third stop is over on the Hudson Nashua line that will likely be commuters but the area could be updated with mixed use offerings. 4th stop is airport in Bedford and they have already stated they will have a shuttle on loop to bring you across the river. 5th and 6th stop is down town Manchester where you have the Fisher Cats, SNHU Arena and Palace Theater along with dozens of restaurants bars and specialty shops.
There is also plans for a bed down facility for the trains which means jobs for maintenance along with crew layovers.
vexingsilence t1_j7vx75w wrote
I don't see the use in stopping at the Pheasant. Malls are dead. Amazon has taken over. The only reason to put a stop there would be to service the residential units that will eventually replace a lot of the retail sprawl that exists in that area. That's a stop that should probably only occur outside of commute hours.
What's the second stop in south Nashua? The Pheasant is south Nashua.
Fifth and sixth stops should probably be combined. That's way too many stops for a very long rail service. The longer it takes to get from one end to the other, the less useful it is. Commuters won't use something that takes significantly longer than if they just drove.
That's been part of the problem. Other towns along the line also want in, but there's a tipping point where there are so many stops that you can't actually get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. The strongest proposal, IMO, was Manchester, Nashua, Lowell, North Station. Four stops. It's short enough to beat a commuter's drive time, includes the most important cities.
UncleRicosWig t1_j7uovt3 wrote
The best ‘technology’ to fight congestion is literally the oldest form of technologies we have from the industrial era. Yet, the dinosaurs who rule the state are hell bent on the farce that cars=independence.
The argument that rail is too expensive is also laughable. They just widened what-two miles?- on the highway by Salem, and at what cost? The dirty little secret in the world of civil engineering is that adding lanes to highways does nothing but add to congestion.
sirspidermonkey t1_j7v63iv wrote
Cars ARE freedom!
Freedom from the driver having to pay for the polution they generate
Freedom from the driver having to pay the full price to maintain the roads
Freedom from having less lethal forms of transportation available Freedom to sit in traffic!
Freedom to be "randomly" stopped searched and ticketed
Cars are all about freedom man!
TheMobyDicks t1_j7u5pfb wrote
Thanks OP. I emailed and suggested ITL.
HillyjoKokoMo t1_j80e7nu wrote
Me too !
Sman_theman t1_j7uf43g wrote
I briefly worked for Pan Am Railways right before csx took over. I will say that despite being an awful employer…csx does a great job of maintaining track. It will be a while before passenger rail returns because all the track between nashua and concord will need to be replaced as well as signal systems being installed. All this will have to be done before trains can move faster than 10 mph. It would certainly be a great way to get to boston for sporting events and concerts without having to drive to the commuter rail.
AKBigDaddy t1_j7ujmsy wrote
Right? At most my wife and I will do a day trip to boston. We'll leave after breakfast, home around dinner. Parking is a PITA and expensive, driving around Boston is a clusterfuck. If I could take a train right into downtown, instead of driving down, catching a bruins game, and driving home, we'd make a weekend of it, take the train in, shop around, hit up the bars, stay in a hotel, and take the train back the next day.
Not to mention there's perks coming the OTHER way too- flying out of MHT is a lot cheaper than BOS sometimes, so being able to just hop a train up to manch and fly out from there would make people far more likely to consider it as an option. That draws more people in, more money brought into the local economy.
Sman_theman t1_j7v1qwk wrote
Exactly! Usually when I go to a bruins game I take the orange line in from malden. Which makes it easy to get out of the city but traffic is BRUTAL to get there. A few weeks ago I was going down for a game and ended up sitting in traffic for nearly 2 hours because of an accident.
AKBigDaddy t1_j7v3msk wrote
I drive all the way from the upper valley, I would love to only have to drive to Manch and just catch a train.
sirspidermonkey t1_j7v4zit wrote
I know no one would openly commit MA tax fraud by hoping the rail to a retail district in NH and skipping out on sales taxes.
But if they did...I'm pretty sure we'd benefit.
AKBigDaddy t1_j7v5blx wrote
I thought about that, but I also was thinking of the fact that the boston area has far better shopping options. But you're right. If you could take an hour ride on a train on a day off, you could save a bundle on taxes.
SomeCalcium t1_j7w7yzw wrote
>It would certainly be a great way to get to boston for sporting events and concerts without having to drive to the commuter rail.
I live on the Seacoast and it's super convenient to take the Amtrak down to Boston. Driving down to Boston is a nightmare, but taking the train down is relatively painless by comparison since you just get plopped at North Station. It's one big benefits of living on the Seacoast instead of living off the I-93 corridor where I grew up.
Hell, even taking the C&J to Logan is much more convenient than driving down.
-cochise t1_j7u8ind wrote
While this bill is fucking idiotic (what possible fair and reciprocal reason could you have to ban future research and proposals?) and I like the idea of a Manchester to Boston line, I’ve never seen anyone show me money numbers that made any sense. Fleets of electric buses are presently far more feasible and affordable.
ETA: I just emailed them asking them to kill the bill, expressing my concern that closing out one option in perpetuity in spite of an uncertain future could harm the citizens and economy of the state. You guys should, too, it’s easy.
AKBigDaddy t1_j7uk47u wrote
>Fleets of electric buses are presently far more feasible and affordable.
Isn't that just in the short term though? From my understanding the real savings from rail is long term, as there's far less maintenance required on a passenger car for a train than there is for any highway vehicle. Not to mention we already have bus service to boston from as far away as Concord. I don't know about you, but I despise taking the concord coach. Bout the only time I do it is if I'm flying out. It's not practical as it is now for going to a bruins game, catching a concert, etc.
-cochise t1_j7uqow7 wrote
I’m imagining probably ten times the bus traffic we have now with regularly spaced schedules that would be workable for daily commuters. Imagining, of course.
AKBigDaddy t1_j7ur9eh wrote
But that only works if you reduce the number of people driving, otherwise you're adding to the traffic problem. Maybe it's just me but I feel like there's a stigma associated with riding a bus that isn't there for taking a train- so for convincing people to take public transport, I think a train will get better adoption than busses. I could very well be wrong, this is just my personal bias- If it was convienient to my workplace, i'd take a train every day. I don't care if the bus is coming to my office door I would drive my own car before taking the bus.
-cochise t1_j7uzbqm wrote
These would be newer and cleaner and full of middle class workers and professionals. Maybe even extend some stretches of HOV lanes to make it even more attractive. Load it with racks for bikes, e-bikes, scooters, yuppies love that shit. Not to mention the green aspect, you could sell that pretty well too.
Imagine a bus leaving from Manchester (Concord , Nashua) every ten minutes during morning commuting hours and you get access to the quick-moving HOV lane for a smooth 60-75 minute ride to Alewife or West Medford.
AKBigDaddy t1_j7uzp3k wrote
> These would be newer and cleaner and full of middle class workers and professionals.
I fit that bill. I still would prefer to drive myself. Maybe I'm just jaded because of my prior experience on buses, or maybe it's just that I hate being in close proximity to other people. Even commuter trains give you SOME room to stretch your legs, stand up and walk around that busses simply don't.
JayBisky t1_j7upzsk wrote
Why wouldn't you want to connect a railway and have less idiots on the road?
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7uvll6 wrote
They likely have some personal financial incentive to not change the status quo would be my guess.
JayBisky t1_j7uxq8q wrote
Probably in bed with big oil, they realize that a large part of NH commutes for work less commuters less revenue
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7uyclk wrote
Also why they don’t mind just watching our energy costs skyrocket.
SheeEttin t1_j7v8zsh wrote
Contrarianism
kathryn13 t1_j7w5wvl wrote
Just a reminder that Manchester has a high number (for NH) of folks without cars and we have next to zero bus service. People that live in Manchester without a car are stuck. We do need train service to connect our residents to the rest of NH and New England.
invenio78 t1_j7v39y3 wrote
Is there any actual data on how many people would utilize this service and the expected cost?
I see lots of people with extreme opinions (pro and con) in posts here but I would argue that it would be worthwhile to have a rough idea of what the cost per passenger is. There are other potential public transportation options such as busses that may (or may not) be much cheaper and easier to implement. Or perhaps there are simply not enough people that do a daily commute from Manchester/Boston to support a railway.
All I'm saying is where is the data?
batmansmotorcycle t1_j7v3oca wrote
The executive council recently killed funding for the study that would have told us that
invenio78 t1_j7v3vzf wrote
Then I would argue that we should perhaps support funding of a study, but not the railway (yet).
batmansmotorcycle t1_j7vkqjh wrote
That was the plan. Now they wanna enshrine it’s death in stone I guess.
ZacPetkanas t1_j7w54d4 wrote
> The executive council recently killed funding for the study that would have told us that
Yep. The report was overdue but it seemed like a waste to only get the interim report. I wonder if that's available?
[deleted] t1_j7v9rb7 wrote
[removed]
UnfairAd7220 t1_j7y0xm6 wrote
How about 'no?'
sideshot1 t1_j7ysfbd wrote
if government would stay out of the way it could be done privately if you want to make money run it up to the mountains then have the infrastructure to get people around the skiers and leaf peeps alone would pay for it
TacoLoco2 t1_j7zqdb9 wrote
A lot of people in this thread have no clue what they are talking about
PoorInCT t1_j8gvvfp wrote
Take it from somebody who lived in a failed state. There is no way this thing can pay for itself.
The Downeaster gets 42 bucks from Dover for a round trip to Boston, and still needs 10 million from Maine to break even. The schedule is limited.
Add 20 bucks for parking or uber/mbta
62 bucks x 20 working days a month = 1240 a month.
I suggest a bus or Car pooling.
ZacPetkanas t1_j7w8nx5 wrote
Unfortunately, the funding was pulled from the latest study so we won't get the full report from the consultant (who was late on their report which allowed for the funding to get pulled). That being said, there are some artifacts here as well as an analysis from 2014, FWIW.
The consultant was supposed to have an interim report available by the end of January but I couldn't find that on the DOT site:
Wide_Television_7074 t1_j7uic07 wrote
I think it makes more sense to connect NH cities and towns to Manch airport than it does to connect these towns to Boston. Why does it need to include Boston at all? If money wasn’t an object; build two corridors (one along 16, one along 93) that have a north south and central transfer spur… I still don’t see why we need to connect to Boston. Maybe if North and South station were connected but they aren’t
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7uw3dm wrote
Because a large portion of our state currently drives into Mass and utilizes their commuter rail system already, or commutes all the way to Boston. Not to mention everyone else who is commuting to Boston for anything from sporting events to shopping to flying out.
Manch airport isn’t a substitute for Logan. Flight options are terrible and limited.
This would help a large chunk of the state on a number of things and just makes entirely more sense than busses.. which defeats the point of reducing traffic and not having to sit in it all day.
FaustusC t1_j7v2hj9 wrote
Well, if that's the case, why are we considering spending billions on a rail system when asking 10,000 to move closer to their work places makes more sense?
Larovich153 t1_j7w0ovo wrote
How about the majority of the state's population thinks it is a good idea and free staters go back to their cabin in the woods and go away
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7vxfk3 wrote
Billions? Also because it helps every citizen of NH? Anyone who would like to commute via rail to downtown boston instead of wasting time, gas, parking, etc on driving in?
I’m sorry if all you do is sit at home and play with yourself but the rest of society has shit to do.
vexingsilence t1_j7v5e3s wrote
It's a nice paradox. People move here because the higher density cities they work in aren't good to live in. But then they want the same services here so that our cities can grow to become the same thing they left because it was unlivable. It's really twisted.
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7vxijp wrote
Or just want to have a train to a major city like every other civilized nation on earth.
FaustusC t1_j7v86er wrote
It's California cancer.
They can no longer afford to live in the state they voted into the ground, they flee to somewhere (usually fiscally conservative) and vote for the same shit that ruined state one. Repeat. I mean fuck, I got an Instagram reel of 3 female roommates laying $6,000 a month for a 3 bedroom house. Imagine paying $2,000 a month to have two fucking roommates still and thinking "yep, I'm of sound mind to make economic decisions for everyone else."
vexingsilence t1_j7v92vt wrote
The funny thing is that some of them will inevitably figure it out over time and become the same people they see today as obstructionists. The cycle of life.
FaustusC t1_j7van8y wrote
You're far more optimistic of them than I am. Lol
AKBigDaddy t1_j7uk6bf wrote
89 too please! I'd love to have a train from Lebanon to MHT.
ArbitraryOrder t1_j7vqh0i wrote
But connections with Massachusetts will increase demand, which will help with commecting the state
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_j7ukpnq wrote
They think by connecting to Manchester there will be more commuters taking the rail.
I agree that NH does not need nor should be connected to MA at all. NH needs to do what is best for all of NH. MA is not known for its highly efficient railway systems.
A railway system is not really needed if other means of transportation can be expanded. An intrastate bus system to get people to different areas with expanded schedules would work best in my opinion.
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7uvr2r wrote
The commuter rail is fantastic. And we have likely tens of thousands of NH citizens commuting to Boston everyday for anything from work to shopping. It makes total sense
Icy-Neck-2422 t1_j7u9wr5 wrote
Each rider will have their own private car - which is nice.
sirspidermonkey t1_j7v6gby wrote
While I believe you'll be proven wrong, I think this comment is hilarious.
RareArtifact t1_j7voqhb wrote
This is such a waste of money. Completely unnecessary.
CDogNH t1_j7v4iyj wrote
Nope.
alienwarezftw t1_j7w4mh5 wrote
eeekkk i would advise for this not to happen, this will get shutdown by homeowners anyways and will consolidate any available housing near the rail where crime and poverty is highest. i have lived in many cities and have no desire to be anywhere near a light rail, america sadly just implements these services so badly
KrissaKray t1_j7u9kuk wrote
I don't.
FaustusC t1_j7v2so1 wrote
Jesus fucking christ, every year the Assholes who moved here from Assachusetts parade this project around. If you're so bitter about your commute (that you knew about when you moved), just move back.
Don't let the door hit yah where the good lord split you.
Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j7tygt6 wrote
Everybody who wants this should get together and start a 503c whatever and fund it.
We can stick it to the fascist legislators and show them the power of the working class.
smartest_kobold t1_j7u680c wrote
We just wasted $10 M+ to take down a balloon. I think we can spend a little for some infrastructure.
asuds t1_j7u2074 wrote
We should do the same for all services: fire, police, roads, airports, and the marines!
Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j7u25kc wrote
Anti fascists unite!
asuds t1_j7vnak4 wrote
Reddit _in_pronoun_voice is pro-facist apparently. Bold position.
Icy-Neck-2422 t1_j7u68oe wrote
You realize that fascists are an edge case right - so just about everyone is anti-fascist by default.
gmcgath t1_j7tviq2 wrote
Translation: "I want somebody else's money."
smartest_kobold t1_j7txb2z wrote
I'm a bitter gremlin who feeds off the negative emotional energy generated by traffic jams. What's your excuse?
gmcgath t1_j7ty90t wrote
I can thing of no excuse at all for your being a bitter gremlin.
MissorNoob t1_j7u6tir wrote
Keep your libertarian brainrot out of our state.
KrissaKray t1_j7u9o8o wrote
Keep your hands out of everyone else's pockets.
MissorNoob t1_j7u9saj wrote
Christ, not you again.
KrissaKray t1_j7u9uk2 wrote
Excellent response to a reasonable suggestion /s
MissorNoob t1_j7uae3p wrote
You're the only one who thinks you're reasonable. If you don't want your taxes to be used for public works, then move somewhere else. Otherwise, kindly fuck off and stop complaining.
KrissaKray t1_j7uat4f wrote
I don't want my tax dollars to be put into a project that is a black hole for money. A rail line in NH will NEVER pay for itself and you're a fool if you think it will. It's not something that should be subsidized by taxpayers.
MissorNoob t1_j7uql5o wrote
If you can't see the benefit of having a commuter rail in a state devoid of public transport, irrespective of its profitability, then I think you must just be biased. I don't care if it makes money. That's not what it's for. The point is to provide a service. It lightens the load on our highways. Drives commerce around its stops. Provides a cheaper alternative to traveling by car.
Not everything has to be profit-driven. Lose that mindset.
batmansmotorcycle t1_j7v1mo2 wrote
Not all narcissists are free staters but all free staters are narcissists
KrissaKray t1_j7urr4u wrote
Sorry but money rules the world and there’s no way that’s changing any time soon. No one is entitled to anyone else’s labor or money.
MissorNoob t1_j7usewo wrote
Then live off the grid. The roads you use, the electricity you use, the police, fire department...hell, even the food you buy are subsidized by taxpayer money. You can't pick and choose. It sounds like you just want to complain and be hypocritical. This is the system you live in. You are a part of it.
KrissaKray t1_j7uvf6z wrote
It’s illegal to live off the grid. I would if I could without the threat of imprisonment 🤷🏼♀️
MissorNoob t1_j7ux6w9 wrote
Man, you are down bad. My condolences.
KrissaKray t1_j7uxthv wrote
Right? Sue me for wanting to be left tf alone.
PleasantCelery421 t1_j7vgqfc wrote
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7uw81g wrote
Go live in Somalia.
KrissaKray t1_j7uwbec wrote
Stop being poor
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7uwfav wrote
My taxes are more than your salary. Stop having the IQ of a 3rd grader
KrissaKray t1_j7uwgww wrote
I’m sure, guy.
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7ux26x wrote
It’s a guarantee. Libertarians inherently have smaller brains than the average American. It’s genetic. You’re inferior, which explains your ability to be so naive that you’d believe in libertarian principles. Small children who live in candyland.
KrissaKray t1_j7uxwbn wrote
Okay, Mr Billionaire. Since you’re so rich, why don’t you fund the rail system yourself?
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7uy7h8 wrote
Because it’s a public service and I’m not a cunt
KrissaKray t1_j7uycz1 wrote
Thanks for offering up everyone else's money instead of your own. Very selfless of you. /s
MiggySmalls6767 t1_j7uys9l wrote
It would be my money as well you donut. That’s how society works. Go to Somalia.
But since you’re so goddamn poor ill cover the .000008 cents you would owe for a rail system.
You’re welcome. Go spend it somewhere nice.
KrissaKray t1_j7uz5t7 wrote
It’s hilarious you think I make only like 80k a year lmao
batmansmotorcycle t1_j7v1gns wrote
Stop driving on my roads that I paid for out of my pockets then….
nowhereman1223 t1_j7u75so wrote
This is because certain politicians have a stake in the bus lines and park and ride stops that are leased to the state. Not to mention the Auto Dealers Organization and all the people worried that Passenger trains providing decent affordable ways to Boston for jobs would gentrify the state too much and make it too "woke".
I have lived here most of my life and seen this state actively fight anything that would bring in new people to live and not just visit. The state complains we don't have progress or money to do things but then actively fights anything that would bring that in.
​
This reminds me of NH fighting Real ID until the Feds said NO MORE FUNDING if you don't comply.